Defenition of marriage suggests sex before marriage permitted?!

siki

Peace siki,

Exactly!

423 (Forbidden to marry) ?

Continues also forbidden....

424 And almuhsanatu (the lady married) from the women except ma malakat aymanukum

Red bold part is the key point where most of the translators have gone wrong, A mohsinna would remain a Mohsinna , we can not single out its meaning at one place to mean "Only a married Mohsinna"

AND there is is no prohibited in verse 4-24. whereas there is one each in the previous two, which list the prohibited category

The only way out is ,

God lists the prohibited category in 4-22 and 4-23, and once he is through with counting the haram category , HE starts talking about the eligible Halal category by a certain title.

It is like this,

4-22 wife of your fathers haram, ,, and HE further counts 13 more in 4-23 by starting with mothers daughters, sisters,,,,,,,,etc, and completes the count with sisters in law.

When HE finishes his list by counting all the haram, HE brings/diverts the topic towards the Halal/eligible ones, by calling them with the Title "mohsinats", and tell you how to seek them.

"And The "Mohsinnats", excluding the mohsinnats, from MMa category, Here by i declare a law in this book, that what ever is besides them'; ( listed 14 haram in the previous 2 verses).. are halal for you, if you seek them with your money with a desire to maintain chastity, Not for out pouring your sexuality (just to satisfy your lusts), Thus , who ever you like among them, seek them and before you enjoy them sexually , you must pay their wages. and there is no sin if you mutually agree after the obligation. God is knowledgeable wise.

So basically in 4-24, God is talking about the eligible halal women , and is prescribing the law declaring that you must pay their wages before you take them sexually, and keep in mind that you would commit to each other before full filling your desires. And your aim should be to stay chaste rather than fulfill your uncontrolled lusts.

Setting a wage and giving it before sex is the law for Mohsinnats, however Mohsinnats belonging to MMA category are excluded from this law.

They are their for you to be taken free , NO wages.

If we scrutinize other verses , we consistently find the same law, wage a must for Mohsinnats before you touch them , and this rule not applicable to MMA. But if some one is getting married (Nikah) to a Mohsinna from MMa category, Recommendation is "as a last resort" (4-25) , only if one thinks that one might end up fornicating due to non availability of a mate,and in that case, one must pick a believing young maiden "Mohsinna" from the MMA category.

siki

truthseeker11

Peace Eid, everyone,

THIS POST IS MAINLY ADDRESSED TO BROTHER EID ALTHOUGH IT IS FOR EVERYONE'S BENEFIT.

Brother Eid, I am a big fan of yours and I appreciate your extraordinary discourses that have exposed the falsehood of the so called code 19, but in this matter I beg to disagree with your definition of mohsanaat as "chaste". I also disagree with Fahad's and Siki's definitions, and MOST of what Siki says about mohsanaat and MMA because he creates a lot of contradictions in the qur'aan resulting in nonsensical interpretations.

Mohsanaat CANNOT mean "chaste" as used in the qur'aan because then it will create a MAJOR PROBLEM if it is accepted to mean "chaste".

Mohsanaat CANNOT mean "married" only as used in the qur'aan because as you have astutely observed, it will create HUMONGOUS contradictions in the god's words.

Brother Eid, I appeal to your SHARP logic and request you to carefully consider the following

In 425, MOHSANAAT are contrasted with FATAYAAT. The only logical deduction would be that these two categories DO NOT overlap. If men are unable to marry the mohsanaat (of the MMA category as per logical deduction from 424) then they are asked to marry the fatayaat (of the MMA category).

Therefore

If you translate MOHSANAAT as chaste, then it would mean that FATAYAAT are unchaste.

This would be slandering the fatayaat. Brother Eid, please consider this logical outcome of your "chaste" definition.

The ONLY subset of women allowed to be married are MMA.

This is a very important conclusion when we combine 424 and 425. They have to be either MMA from the mohsanaat or MMA from the fatayaat. Once you realize this, then it will become crystal clear to you what these terms actually mean.

What Siki is saying is NONSENSE. I think he is off the rocker on this one.

Mohsanaat in 424 cannot be referring to the halal category with MMA as exception to that, as Siki is saying, because then the interpretation of 424 will become nonsensical.

424 And the mohsanaat from the women, except those possessed by your oath; God?s scripture is over you; and permitted for you is what is beyond this................

Firstly, the word "and" at the beginning of 424 does not mean that it is the start of a new category other than the forbidden but it means that it is the continuation of the same forbidden category of 423. In the original qur'aanic manuscripts there were no verse numbers. These verse numbers are a human innovation later on. 424 is a continuation of 423.

Secondly, "and permitted for you is what is beyond this" LOGICALLY CAN ONLY MEAN THAT MOHSANAAT ARE THE FORBIDDEN CATEGORY WITH MMA FROM THE MOHSANAAT BEING EXCEPTION TO THAT.

In 424, the MMA who are mentioned are the exception and thus logically a subset of the mohsanaat. This would mean that not all mohsanaat are forbidden, but those mohsanaat that are MMA are allowed. Then in 425 we are told that if men cannot marry the mohsanaat then they can marry the MMA from the fatayaat. But didn't the god just say in 424 that mohsanaat are forbidden except MMA? So how can men marry mohsanaat as implied by 425?

THE ONLY LOGICAL CONCLUSION WOULD BE THAT IF MEN WANT TO MARRY MOHSANAAT, THEY HAVE TO FIRST MAKE THE MOHSANAAT MMA. Thus converting the "regular mohsanaat" into "MMA mohsanaat" would become COMPULSORY in order to marry them.

Similarly with fatayaat, we are asked to marry only MMA from them. This again would mean that converting "regular fatayaat" into "MMA fatayaat" would be COMPULSORY in order to marry them.

Now what definitions of these terms will make sense and logically avoid any contradictions in the god's words?

The following is what I propose; please carefully consider this

MOHSANAAT = PROTECTED WOMEN, and because we don't need permission from their guardians they are not guardian dependent, hence they are "GUARDIAN INDEPENDENT PROTECTED WOMEN" according to the context.

FATAYAAT = YOUNG WOMEN, and because we need permission from their guardians they are guardian dependent, hence they are "GUARDIAN DEPENDENT YOUNG WOMEN" according to the context.

MMA = WHAT POSSESSED BY YOUR OATH, and because the context is marriage, this oath can only be an oath to get married to them, hence they are "THOSE WOMEN POSSESSED BY YOUR OATH TO GET MARRIED" according to the context.

This will resolve any contradiction and make total sense.

Following will be the logical implications of 424 and 425 with these meanings

Mohsanaat will include protected independent single women (self protected) and protected married women (protected by marriage) and those mohsanaat who are possessed by your oath to get married (protected by oath to get married).
The only way you can get married to such a woman is to first possess her by your oath to get married to her.
This will automatically disqualify married women because they are possessed by someone else's oath and not your oath, so the married women can never become your MMA.

This point #3 needs to be re-read many times to fully understand it.

Hence the only mohsanaat eligible to become your MMA would be the protected independent single women.
If a man cannot find such a protected independent single woman who can be possessed by his oath, then he is asked to marry a guardian dependent young woman with her guardian's permission, but first he has to possess her by his oath to get married.
Once such a guardian dependent young woman gets married through this procedure, then she gets converted to the mohsanaat category per 425, because now she is protected by marriage.
NO MMA IS EXEMPT of AJR WHEN MARRYING THEM. Siki is really off the rocker on this one. MEN HAVE TO GIVE AJR TO MMA WHEN THEY GET MARRIED TO THEM, because they are the only category allowed to be married.

NO CONTRADICTIONS, NO CONFUSION.

Brother Eid, please go through this very carefully and point out any logical errors that you can see resulting from my proposed meanings.

unknownuser

Peace siki, truthseeker et al,

NO CONTRADICTIONS, NO CONFUSION.

Brother Eid, please go through this very carefully and point out any logical errors that you can see resulting from my proposed meanings.

That's all cool, I'm open to find the non contradicting meaning which is always the best.

The subtle transition from 423 (Forbidden to marry) ?to 424 And almuhsana needs closer scrutiny and will take a look time permitting -- still busy pondering inheritance verses and few other things.

Wakas

I believe this issue is covered in 'The Natural Republic' book
http//free-minds.org/sites/default/files/TNR.pdf

My copy is the 2004 edition, not the updated one.

nimnimak_11

Truthseeker peace

I have already shown from the qur'aan that AJR CANNOT MEAN WAGE. Wage is something that is ONGOING BY DEFINITION. Marriage is ongoing so "wage" would be ongoing. According to 3350 the prophet HAD ALREADY GIVEN THE UJOOR, SO IT CANNOT BE AN ONGOING THING SO IT CANNOT BE WAGE.

Agreed.

When we see various signs mentioning AJR in the life hereafter, when it describes the AJR it is always a description of physical things. Also I have already quoted two signs earlier in which God will give AJR as compensation to what people spend out of their wealth/property so it has to be something physical and something of intrinsic value.

hmm Not sure on this reasoning. Depends on what we understand the word physical to mean. I?ve always understood the physical descriptions to be metaphors but more importantly what we spend out of our wealth/property does not mean that our reward will be physical.

Let's go step by step. Let's look at 424

424 ..........................then you shall give them their dowries/UJOOR an ordinance/stipulation/settlement/FAREEDA. There is no sin upon you for what you agree to after the obligation. God is Knowledgeable, Wise.

Here AJR to wife is being called FAREEDA.

Let's see these two signs

2236 There is no sin upon you if you divorce the women before having sexual intercourse with them, or before setting/stipulating the ordinance/stipulation/settlement/FAREEDA for them. Let them have recompense, the rich according to his means, and the poor according to his means. Recompense which is in goodness, a responsibility for those in kindness.
2237 And if you divorce them before having sexual intercourse with them, but you have already set/stipulated the ordinance/stipulation/settlement/FAREEDA for them; then you must give half of what you have agreed, unless they forgive or the guardian over the marriage contract forgives. And if you forgive, it is closer to righteousness. And do not forget the favor between you; God is Seer over what you do.

Ok from this argument I agree that ajr is to be physical on the basis that 424 is related to 2237.

Now coming to 2282 and how it is related to AJR. As I have shown that AJR is something physical with intrinsic value. If it is not given at the time of marriage/nikah as a lump sum, THEN THE HUSBAND OWES IT TO THE WIFE TO BE GIVEN AFTER OR OVER A FIXED PERIOD OF TIME AFTER NIKAH. What does that come under? It comes under DYN/debt/loan which is being talked about in the first part of 2282. Hence, it HAS to be recorded as a written document if it is not paid on the spot at the time of marriage/nikah. If it is given on the spot at the time of nikah, then it comes under "tijarat hazirat", and thus there is no blame if it is not written down per 2282.

I disagree. For example a branch of rose as ajr does not have to be written down as it is not of enough value to be written down. If it is not of enough value, then it does not come under the DYN in the context of 2282. If you lent a pen to a friend, would you have it written down or witnessed?? I wouldn?t unless the pen was of ENOUGH valuable to me.

Can you provide any evidence to prove that ajr has to be of a certain level of value?

Now coming to written marriage contract.

As per 2237, "allathee biyadihi oqdat al-nikah"/the one with/in his hand the marriage contract CAN ONLY BE THE HUSBAND as explained in one of my earlier posts. Because it says "his hand" it has to be a written contract. Hence, because it can only be referring to the husband, and it is with/in his hand, IT IS COMPULSORY

It is not compulsory to my understanding. You don?t have to have an ?allathee biyadihi oqdat al-nikah?. 2237 does not say nor imply that there HAS to be an ?allathee biyadihi oqdat al-nikah? its implication is that there CAN be one.

Proposing according to the qur'aan is "khitbaat al-nisaa". It can be public or secret (2235). It is not compulsory.

Oath to get married is compulsory and would come under BAAYA3, so requires two witnesses, which is missing from your scenario.

Yes. But I see no wrong in my understanding of You can propose publicly or secretly but until you agree to start a relationship it does not come under Ba-Ya-Ayn. Once it starts, THEN it may fall under Ba-Ya-Ayn thus 2 witnesses are required if this is considered as on the spot.

Taking her out somewhere after nikah would NOT be AJR unless she is explicitly told that this is her AJR for entering the nikah allegiance, and she agrees to it being her AJR. AJR can actually be paid even after post nikah sexual intercourse or even at the time of divorce, if mutually agreed by the husband and wife.

I disagree as you have not backed this up. Verses?? I found none.
I cannot find a verse which says that ajr is mutually agreed. Thus no point in discussing this point until you provide evidence.

Your scenario clearly violates the qur'aan.

Let?s decide at the end of the discussion. I?m surprised you are writing this without giving me a chance to respond to your points.

If you just want to have sex with someone similar to your scenario above then go ahead

Truthseeker, I don?t remember saying that that?s what I want and you should not assume things because you may be wrong. Including this, I can count twice where you have MISJUDGED me and my intentions.

don't say it is sanctioned by the god

We are trying to get to the truth. We have different opinions on the Quran hence we have different opionions on what God forbids and permits. I can?t just say to you ?Don?t say that God forbids......? I don?t think this comment was necessary.

I have now changed my (minimum requirement) scenario based on your evidences I propose (openly/secretly) to a free believer and It is accepted. We tell others (witnesses). I take her out (ajr). We are now Quranically married (minimum requirement).

My points

Marriage contract does not have to be written
Ajr is not mutually agreed nor does it HAVE to be written or witnessed.

I am completely open to this. I will change my mind if you can provide reasonable answers to my points in my post to you.

Thanks,
peace

nimnimak_11

Thanks for sharing but please adress my point about ajr in my last post then this can be discussed more.
peace

Peace Nyma, everyone,

I made some errors in my previous post and I am re-posting it after correction of my errors

I was pondering on 2282 when it occurred to me that I could be wrong about the number of witnesses and also about whether a written marriage contract is always required.

Let's study 2282 step by step.

2282 O you who believe, if you borrow for a future period, then you shall record it. And let a scribe of justice record it for you; and let not the scribe refuse to record as God has taught him. Let him record and let the person who is borrowing dictate to him, and let him be aware of God, and let him not reduce from it anything.............

The first part of 2282 quoted above talks about normal procedure for DYN/debt/loan. It is obvious that there is only one witness in this scenario, i.e. the scribe who is writing the contract.

Now let's see the second part

2282 .............................. If the borrower is immature or weak or he cannot dictate himself, then let his guardian dictate with justice; and bring two witnesses from amongst your men; if there are not two men, then a man and two women from whom you will accept their testimony, so that if one of them becomes occupied, then the one can reminds the other. And let the witnesses not refuse to come if they are called.............

This part starts with an IF so everything that is said relevant to this scenario is applicable ONLY to this scenario. This part talks about if the borrower is either immature, or weak, or cannot dictate. I now have the understanding that requirement of the two extra male witnesses applies only to this scenario. This part is of the form IF .............. THEN ............ and the two male witnesses come after the THEN so I think those two extra male witnesses are needed only if the borrower is immature, weak, or cannot dictate. Actually in such a case there will be THREE witnesses. The scribe who writes the document + two male witnesses.

It makes sense that two extra male witnesses will be required because the borrower is immature or weak or cannot dictate, to prevent any possible injustice.

Now let's see the third part

2282 ............... And do not fail to record it no matter how small or large until its maturity. That is more just with God and better for the testimony, and better that you do not have doubts; except if it is a trade to be done on the spot between you, then there is no sin upon you if you do not record it...............

God reinforces the necessity of having a written contract and gives an exception which is that if the transaction is done on the spot then it is not required to write it down.

Let's see the fourth part

2282 ................ And have it witnessed if you conduct business/make an allegiance/covenant..............

This is a continuation of the third part. This would mean that ANY BAAYA3 requires it to be witnessed, no matter what. Here it does not specify how many witnesses so the minimum necessary would be one witness.

Applied to the first two parts it would mean the following

Normal circumstances, but transaction carried out on the spot ------> written contract not required but at least one witness.
Borrower immature or weak or cannot dictate, and transaction carried out on the spot ------> written contract not required but two witnesses required.

Now let's see how that would apply to nikah/marriage.

There can be the following four scenarios

Two parties enter nikah/marriage, and ajr to be paid later, and the husband is not weak, or unable to dictate ------> written contract required and only one witness necessary (the scribe who writes the contract).
Two parties enter nikah/marriage, and ajr to be paid later, and the husband is weak, or unable to dictate ------> written contract required and three witnesses (scribe + two male witnesses).
Two parties enter nikah/marriage, and ajr paid on the spot, and the husband is not weak, or unable to dictate ------> written contract not required and only one witness necessary (because we are told to have the transaction witnessed in the fourth part as described above).
Two parties enter nikah/marriage, and ajr paid on the spot, and the husband is weak, or unable to dictate ------> written contract not required but two male witnesses necessary.

As we can see that at least one witness will always be necessary but a written contract may or may not be required depending on whether the transaction was carried on the spot or was delayed.

In the 3rd and 4th scenario above, there is no written contract and one can then argue that in those cases no written marriage contract is necessary. This may be true because even in 2237, a written marriage contract is mentioned but it is in the context of AJR not yet paid, so it is one of the first two scenarios described above. 2237 talks about divorce, without sexual intercourse, and AJR has been stipulated/specified but not yet paid, thereby necessitating a written contract and this contract is what is referred to in that sign as "oqdat al-nikah"/marriage contract.

EVERYONE PLEASE RE-READ WHAT I HAVE SAID ABOVE CAREFULLY BECAUSE IT CAN APPEAR TO BE A LITTLE COMPLEX, BUT ONCE UNDERSTOOD IT IS NOT THAT COMPLEX.

Summary

SCENARIOS 1 & 2 above written contract necessary + one witness or three witnesses (scribe and two male witnesses) required depending on condition of the husband.
SCENARIOS 3 & 4 above written contract not required + one witness or two male witnesses required depending on condition of the husband.

Fahad1

Peace bro.

Fahad

Brother Peace

you know I like to discuss a lot of things with you , but it becomes difficult for me when ,

You pop up after such a long time with a reply, that one loses track of the discussion, specially if the thread contains multiple discussion points/posts.

I understand that bro and I am very sorry about it. I wish I could be more regular, but my current schedule is such that I can't help it. So please bear with me.

Your argumentation is broken in a way that it becomes a point to point refutation (by you) only, and one does not have a clear idea as to what you want to say or what is your understanding on the issue.

So, I would request you to come up with a short summary of your understandings, complete with the references, as to why you understand so , regarding zina and mohsinnats, and inshallah we would be able to take this discussion somewhere objectively. No offence please.

A point by point "refutation" or address becomes necessary where people like to make so many points without backing them. But whenever I have summarized my understanding, the main arguments usually go unaddressed(in this discussion and many, if not most, previous ones as well). For example, my understanding of 4/25 still hasn't been addressed even though that's my only argument about al-muhsanaat being married women!

I will try to summarize my understanding again in a better way. No offence taken.

Fahad1

Fahad

60-10 that you refered , the term being used is Mominaat, Not " mohsinnat" because,
In these mominnats , there is a reasonable possibility that a few may not qualify as mohsinnats for you. As some could be belonging to the Haram category, and some , in your opinion do not deserve the title "Mohsinna"

I didn't say 60/10 is referring to al-muhsanaat, but to the "MMA". They can include both al-muhsanaat and fatayaat.

God is recommending that if some married believing women flee to you , because they dont want to be with those people due to religious difficulties, then , you keep them, and pay back a compensation to their non believing husbands.

And now, if i was the one , who was looking to marry some one out of these mominnat, The recommendation is that i should try my best to pick out a Mohsinna.

I will address this in the summary.

Fahad1

Translating Mohsinnate as married women , is wrongest possible meaning that one can deduce,

Because translating 4-24 as married contradicts 4-25 , and also in 4-25 , the recommendation of marrying a believing mohsinnat from mma cat , who is to be a maiden , completely shatters your undestanding,

But where does it say the 'al-muhsana' is to be maiden/unmarried? Or did you just assume that?

siki

But where does it say the 'al-muhsana' is to be maiden/unmarried? Or did you just assume that?

Fatayat is being translated as girls, young maiden, young women, by different translators, However, the correct meaning of fatayat is , Young females,
The stress , being on a Fatayat,from MMA, Not just any woman,

Translators translating them to be as girls or maidens are imagining too far. Although there are bright chances for these young females to be unmarried/maiden, however we can not preclude that some young female could be a widow or divorcee, you are right in pointing it out.

siki

siki

I didn't say 60/10 is referring to al-muhsanaat, but to the "MMA". They can include both al-muhsanaat and fatayaat.

Off course , we do find muhsinnats in MMA cateogry and Fatayats as well, A mohsinna can be a fatayat, and a fatayat may not be a MOHsinna, But there is no MMA in this aya.
60-10 is discussing an issue regarding MOMINNAT ILL MOHJIRRATE.
siki

siki

I will try to summarize my understanding again in a better way. No offence taken.

waiting.

siki

siki

In 425, MOHSANAAT are contrasted with FATAYAAT. The only logical deduction would be that these two categories DO NOT overlap. If men are unable to marry the mohsanaat (of the MMA category as per logical deduction from 424) then they are asked to marry the fatayaat (of the MMA category).

NO brother, there is no contrasting here, just a specific alternate being recommended, what is being said is ,

If you are not able to marry a believing chaste/eligible/halal woman, Try and find the same among MMA category, and when you look in this category (MMA), make sure that you pick up some one believing, and young.

Because, in MMA ,

There could be mohsinnat ul ootul kitab, who are also halal as per 5-5.
There could be believing middle aged mohsinnats.

siki

siki

Secondly, "and permitted for you is what is beyond this" LOGICALLY CAN ONLY MEAN THAT MOHSANAAT ARE THE FORBIDDEN CATEGORY WITH MMA FROM THE MOHSANAAT BEING EXCEPTION TO THAT.

kindly explain this,

Alyawma ohilla lakumu alttayyibatuwataAAamu allatheena ootoo alkitaba hillunlakum wataAAamukum hillun lahum waalmuhsanatumina almu/minati waalmuhsanatu minaallatheena ootoo alkitaba min qablikum itha ataytumoohunnaojoorahunna muhsineena ghayra musafiheenawala muttakhithee akhdanin waman yakfur bial-eemanifaqad habita AAamaluhu wahuwa fee al-akhiratimina alkhasireena

This day (all) the good things are allowed to you; and the food of those who have been given the Book is lawful for you and your food is lawful for them; and the chaste from among the believing women and the chaste from among those who have been given the Book before you (are lawful for you); when you have given them their dowries, taking (them) in marriage, not fornicating nor taking them for paramours in secret; and whoever denies faith, his work indeed is of no account, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers

Do you find MOHsinnte Mominnate and mohsintel ootul kitab, HAllal or Haram?

Do you find MMA any where?

siki

siki

THE ONLY LOGICAL CONCLUSION WOULD BE THAT IF MEN WANT TO MARRY MOHSANAAT, THEY HAVE TO FIRST MAKE THE MOHSANAAT MMA. Thus converting the "regular mohsanaat" into "MMA mohsanaat" would become COMPULSORY in order to marry them.

Daraba lakum mathalan min anfusikum hal lakum mi mma malakat aymanukum min shurakaa fee ma razaqnakum faantum feehi sawaon takhafoonahum kakheefatikum anfusakum kathalika nufassilu alayati liqawmin yaAAqiloona

3028 HE sets forth for you a parable concerning yourselves. Have you, among those whom your right hands possess, partners in what WE have provided for you so that you become equal sharers therein, and you fear them as you fear each other ? Thus do WE explain the Signs to a people who understand.

Brother TS.

Can you explain about this example given by God , in the light of your above understanding?

siki

Q_student

Dear TruthSeeker
You are saying again and again that "Mohsanaat" has been used in contrast to "Fatayaat".

( 2 / 177)
. { } .

Fatayaat has two meanings
1young ladies
2Slave ladies (figuratively)
If you take the first meaning then "Monsanaat " according to your theory will mean "Old ladies " and if you take second meaning then these will mean "free ladies".
Which meanings are you adopting or you are having something else in your mind?
Regards

siki

MOHSANAAT = PROTECTED WOMEN, and because we don't need permission from their guardians they are not guardian dependent, hence they are "GUARDIAN INDEPENDENT PROTECTED WOMEN" according to the context.

Can you kindly explain the above category " protected women" "Guardian independent protected women?

Protected from what?
How are they protected?
who protects them?

And if you dont have a logical explanation which makes sense, Ask me, I will explain it to you.

siki

siki

MMA = WHAT POSSESSED BY YOUR OATH, and because the context is marriage, this oath can only be an oath to get married to them, hence they are "THOSE WOMEN POSSESSED BY YOUR OATH TO GET MARRIED" according to the context.

That means that you kinda get engaged with these women before you actually marry them, and then according to 70-29,30 your explanation was, ( "one may inspect each others private parts , exactly like husband and wife, so that one may check , "weather these are good enough". Were you hinting at ensuring that these are compatible fitments?

70-29,30 And they protect their sexual organs (from all) except azwaj, and Ma Malakat emnakum.

siki

Samia

I have put it in three colors
1Red it is the Protasis of the conditional sentence
2Green color is the apodosis of the conditional sentence

Blue color does not seem to be a part this conditional sentence because there is suddenly a change of address from 3rd person singular male to 2nd person plural males
Regards

Salaam Student

There's no address to the third person. Address is usuaully to the second person, male or female, singular, plural or dual.

siki

Hence the only mohsanaat eligible to become your MMA would be the protected independent single women.
If a man cannot find such a protected independent single woman who can be possessed by his oath, then he is asked to marry a guardian dependent young woman with her guardian's permission, but first he has to possess her by his oath to get married.
How does a woman become , "protected independent single woman"?
So the priority goes to finding an above category, and if somehow you are unable to, only then, one can ask parents of a young maiden for an engagement and marriage. ( (I guess 95% marriages are not happening this way and hence defying the order in 4-25.
4-25 is also warning about this fatayat nikah , by saying, " This is for those who fear falling in sin ( last resort only) , and preferably you should abstain from doing this , because God knows what is better for you( so according to God, this is not the best course of action for us)

Most of the first timers are going in , only and only for these so called "parents protected young females" , isn't it? ;D

hmm and marrying her direct is not possible , an engagement oath is a must , so that both of you can explore each others sexual organs. caution, caution, NO fornication please , that is strictly prohibited and is punishable with 100 lashes.
D personally I would luv this arrangement. Posses a young female with a promise, explore her sexual organs thoroughly, declare her parts undesirable, reverse your oath, move on to the next young female, and of course no fear, as all this is happening with the parents permission. yuck I guess this is the Norm in the western societies these days.

siki