Defenition of marriage suggests sex before marriage permitted?!
-
****THEREFORE, a woman becomes al-muhsana after nikah.
(Btw, if we take it to mean chaste, then are fatayaat unchaste? Are chaste women forbidden for marriage(4/24)? That wouldn't make sense.)
Fatayats , are not unchaste, because you have to look for the same ( Mohsinnats) but this time among MMA. The 4-25 is simply conveying,
If you cant find a chaste, halal, elligible lady(Mohsinnate) from among the believing category, then find the same (A mohsinna) among MMA,who must be again a believer,and ensure that she should be a young one.
The stress of this aya is on believing kind, Our first priority is to find a believing Mohsinna , and if we dont find one, we may not go ahead for the Mohsinnas among otul kitab,(as permitted in 5-6) or a one who has a bad reputation (Questionable character wise,one who does not deserve to be called by mohsinnate title) Or a one among the non believers. Or a mushriqa or a zania, before considering MMa category. A believing young girl among MMAhas priority over the rest(first alternate) mentioned above.
Commandments are very simple and straight forward, I do not understand as to why people make a mess out of it.
siki
-
Salaam,
If they are punished they are labeled 243 Alzzanee la yankihu illa zaniyatan
Salaam Eid, all
What if they repent after the punishment?
(243)
243 the adulterer couples with none other than an adulteress - that is, a woman who accords a place side by side with God; and with the adulteress couples none other than an adulterer - that is, a man who accords a place side by side with God and this is forbidden unto the believers.
In my opinion, this can be understood in two ways
1- The act of zina itself can only take place between an adultrer and an adultress or a mushrik and a mushriks (who accord to their lust a place that should be accorded to the commandments of God/ the restrictions according to the Straight Path).
OR
2- The act is performed in a professional way, i.e a repeated act, as in porn movies, a profession, indicated by the pattern of "actor/ ismul fa3il" in zaani/ zaania = faa3il / faa3ila. For example, if I sell my car, that does not make me a car dealer but a one off act.
Even for those in the second category, repentence will bring them back to the pool of chaste. Marriage is forbidden if they do not repent.
-
Forbidden sexually are married muhsanat exception of MMA category; no contradictions and they are believers.
425 ...so from MMA from your youths (girls) the believers (F)
The contradiction is that MMA are also married (if muhsanat are married, according to you). Why do you decide that these muhsanaat mentioned in this verse are the married ones?
"Forbidden are the married women except MMA" What do you understand from this phrase by logic? Only one valid conclusion MMA are a sub category of the "married women" They are married, contradicts your rendition of 425
Still you did not explain how this applies to the males. -
Yes, they were captives, runaways, perhaps prior slaves before Qur'an (feed the poor or free a neck). To be treated with kindness 436; needed permission to marry from their person in charge 2433 not equal 1671
What makes them captives? Contradicts the teachings of the quraan forbidding aggression. If you are defending your self/home, you will be occupied with chasing the enemy away. Are you dreaming that this agressive army is made up of women? Is it even quraanic to keep them as captives?
Moreover, in all the verses that discuss the captives (285; 867; 870; 95; 3326; 76, none says "marry them"or make them MMA. If they accept to be believers, you treat them as one of you and they cannot be under any body's charge. If they do not, you cannot marry them They are within a forbidden category of mushriks/ non believers.runaways, from the believing community or to it, is dealt with in verse 6010. No mention of marrying them as MMA
prior slaves?free salves? They become free. periodMy question what makes these categories easier to marry than the muhsanat, as per verse 425?
-
3028 ...are for you from MMA from partners in what We provided for you? So you are (all) in it equal?
Obviously read context for appropriate usage applicable to which gender.
Question
Address in context is ONLY to men not able to have sex; where is the guidance for normal people?
Verse 3028 is not clear, and I do not see how it supports or refutes any understaning.Where od you get "equal"from? It says "you fear them the way you fear yourselves?" I do not know how someone fears themselves, so I cannot comment on it yet.
Not context...context is understanding.I read address. The quraan is addressing both genders, unless it is explicitly shown that only one gender is addressed. MMA are mentioned for females too.
Address is not only to men. Normal people do not have a problem marrying muhsanat. Why do they need guidance? I bring tea to a group, and I say those who cannot metabolize sugar, here are sweetners. Would the rest ask me and what about us?!
-
Samia and some others
I fail to understand as to why are you not answering the basic contradiction which arises due to your falulty assumption of Mohsinnate as married in 4-24 and prohibited? I have asked/shown you nany a times that it 100%contradicts with what is being commanded in 4-25 and 5-6.
4-25--and if you are not able to marry a believing Mohsinna -- then
5-6--today all Good food---and Hallal for you are believing Mohsinnas as well as Mohsinnas from people of the book--It is like trying to play scrabble when you haven't learnt the ABC yet.
please move forward only when you are able to resolve this basic/major contradiction.
siki
-
For all who are posting to resolve this issue
You have to come up with a complete package and show us as to how your understanding of the words (MMA, Mohsinnate) fit in all the relevant verses of Quran , and also discuss as to how/why they make sense.
You can not pick up just a single verse, scribble what you think as how it should be, and vanish.
Pop up again after a few days when the thread has moved forward, and people have forgotten. Write some more nonsense about how you interpret another aya, and go away distracting the sincere learners , who are eagerly waiting for an out come.
And to all those whom I have asked pertinent queries regarding their understandings; please come up with a satisfying answer before indulging into further discussion, and if you have not been able to, it is better to go back to the drawing board, rather than singing the same old song.
siki
-
Salaam siki
Samia and some others
I fail to understand as to why are you not answering the basic contradiction which arises due to your falulty assumption of Mohsinnate as married in 4-24 and prohibited? I have asked/shown you nany a times that it 100%contradicts with what is being commanded in 4-25 and 5-6.
4-25--and if you are not able to marry a believing Mohsinna -- then
5-6--today all Good food---and Hallal for you are believing Mohsinnas as well as Mohsinnas from people of the book--It is like trying to play scrabble when you haven't learnt the ABC yet.
please move forward only when you are able to resolve this basic/major contradiction.
siki
First of all,as long as you consider my assumption as faulty without even reading with "an open mind ",to borrow your request, what I write, what's the point of asking questions?
Where did I say "muhsanat " are married women?
Where did you ask me and I refused to respond? This is the basis of my understanding of this issuehttp//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9598241.msg201306#msg201306
and unless you get rid of this co-descending attitude towards others who debate with you and who you disagree with, there wont be any fruitful discussion
-
I will start my post with congratulations to all participants. My head is spinning since a long time ago already. But we keep at it, and I am sure that we are grinding a lot of beans at this time, and surely it will show later on though now we may feel a bit frustrated. I particularly thank you all for your input.
Congratulations also to siki for his 1000th post, great achievement in trying to polish the unpolished, and also for his n-th "you women who suck to the feminist western brainwash" post which I find so funny, unlike the rest which are more serious.
Ok, to the point I see in 4.24 that it says
... illa mamalakat aymaanukum kitaabAllahi ...
gramatically what causes the kitaab to be marfu3? Usually I see it translated in this sentence as a subject. But a subject of what? To say merely that the scripture of God is on them? But then, why marfu3?
Please, grammarians, satisfy me on that and at least one of my thousands of confusions might be lifted.
Thanks and congratulations to all again.
Salaam
-
Salaam siki
First of all,as long as you consider my assumption as faulty without even reading with "an open mind ",to borrow your request, what I write, what's the point of asking questions?
Where did I say "muhsanat " are married women?
Where did you ask me and I refused to respond? This is the basis of my understanding of this issuehttp//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9598241.msg201306#msg201306
and unless you get rid of this co-descending attitude towards others who debate with you and who you disagree with, there wont be any fruitful discussion.
Samia , salam.
I get worked up when I find mature experienced members loose their bearing. Whatever, I will try and be more careful about my co descening attitude that you mentioned.
Trust me , when I say that I seriously evaluated your sexually disabled theory, but when I tried to fit that in some other ayas , It did not work out.
And I dont want to do your work, If you are so convinced about it, I think you have the talent to put it in one comprehensive form and show us all , as to how good it works in all the relevant ayas.
(Btw, my address was , samia and others, I am in knowledge of your disabled postulate since very long)
siki
-
Congratulations also to siki for his 1000th post, great achievement in trying to polish the unpolished, and also for his n-th "you women who suck to the feminist western brainwash" post which I find so funny, unlike the rest which are more serious.
Thanks,
By the way ,"this western feminist brain wash" , Isn't this a fact? ;D Gone are the days when we men used to posses you with our right hands voodoo ,and add or change you at will, Now you rule the world, and poor us , we are just being utilised for providing food and seeds.
OK coming to some serious talk,
What are you trying to know regarding , Kitab allah he allukum, what is the confusion? and what is this Marfu3?
siki
-
5.5 Today, the good things have been made lawful to you, and the food of those who have been given the Scripture is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them;
? and the muhsanat (immune) from the believing women,
? and the muhsanat (immune) from the people of the Scripture before you,
if
? you have given them their dowries,
? you are muhsinin (immune)
? you are chaste,
? and you are not seeking to take lovers.
And whoever rejects belief, then his work has fallen, and in the Hereafter he is of the losers.One should be immune (muhsan) (sexually able) to marry a muhsana (a lady who is sexually able)
As per verses 424-25 any one (who have any sexual defect) who is not able physically to marry muhsanat shall look for a lady who will voluntarily accept his condition and marry with her. This lady will be his MMA and he will be her MMA.
-
One should be immune (muhsan) (sexually able) to marry a muhsana (a lady who is sexually able)
As per verses 424-25 any one (who have any sexual defect) who is not able physically to marry muhsanat shall look for a lady who will voluntarily accept his condition and marry with her. This lady will be his MMA and he will be her MMA.
rotfl Brother , i would be interested in finding out, as to how have you translated the words , Mohsann or mohsinnate , into sexually able Man or woman?
Moreover, where are the sexual defects mentioned in 4-24 or 4-25?
siki
-
Thanks,
What are you trying to know regarding , Kitab allah he allukum, what is the confusion? and what is this Marfu3?
siki
I am trying to know what the Qur'an says exactly. Kitaaba marfu3 means roughly that it is in accusative form and therefore is not a subject unless it is modified by some particle, but if it is, which is that particle? That is, I want to know what is "kitaaba"'s function in the sentence, and where does the sentence end and where does it begin.
Salaam
-
Peace Nyma,
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.
ITS VALUE DOES NOT MATTER. 2282 does not say that record only those debts that have value. DAYN refers to ANYTHING OWED.
DYN in 2282 does not refer to "something owed that is of value" but refers to anything owed or any debt.
You would be right only if 2282 had said "if you owe anything of value", and then the god wiould have defined the value also to avoid confusion in 2282, but it does not say that.
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.
2237 refers to when ajr has been specified/stipulated but not yet paid, which would automatically require a written contract. The "oqdat al-nikah" in this sign refers to this written contract. It is a written contract because ajr has been specified/stipulated but not yet paid, so it is owed and comes under DYN.
In my other post which you have not yet commented on, I mentioned the understanding that there is no written contract if AJR is paid on the spot at the time of nikah, but if it is not given at time of nikah, then the written contract is compulsory.
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.
Proposal is called "khitbaat al-nisaa" according to 2235, and because it can be public or secret, no witnesses needed. I never said that "proposal" comes under Ba-Ya-Ayn. You are misquoting me here, and that is one thing which I really really really don't like.
Oath to get married is the next step after "proposal". Once you take an oath in front of the god to get married then she becomes your MMA. This oath to get married (not the proposal), will come under Ba-Ya-Ayn and will need one witness or two witnesses depending on condition of the husband (see my other post on 2282 that you haven't commented on for how many witnesses).
There can be three steps, out of which first is optional, but second and third are compulsory
- Proposal (KHITBAAT AL-NISA) ------> No witnesses necessary
- Oath to get married (MMA) ---------> one or two male witnesses required
- Nikah/marriage ---------------------> number of witnesses depends on condition of husband, written contract required only when AJR not given on the spot at the time of nikah.
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.424 ..................... As for those whom you have already had joy with, then you shall give them their dowries as an obligation. There is no sin upon you for what you agree to after the obligation. God is Knowledgeable, Wise.
It clearly mentions "mutual agreement"/"tardaitum".
You can argue that the mutual agreement is AFTER ajr is given as obligation but the end result will be the same. For example, you give her some sand as ajr and AFTER you gave the sand she does not agree, so then "there is no sin upon you for what you agree to after the obligation" as per 424.
Of course what you give depends upon your means as clearly mentioned in 2236
2236 There is no sin upon you if you divorce the women before having sexual intercourse with them, or before stipulating/specifying the stipulation/settlement 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.
I repeat that just taking her out would not be ajr unless you also let her know that this will be her ajr for nikah, and then she agrees to it per 424. For example, you take her out and let her know that this is her ajr for marriage and then after you take her out she disagrees, then you can settle it with mutual agreement as per 424.
Everything related to nikah/marriage has to be with mutual agreement. This is common sense. For example, you cannot force your wife into having sex with you when she is not feeling like having sex, thereby raping her. You cannot also just give her a fistful of sand as ajr, even though she disagrees to it, and then think your obligation is fulfilled.
-
Peace everyone,
Mohsanaat cannot mean "sexually able" women, because they are contrasted with fatayaat in 425, which would make fatayaat "unable to have sex". Immune actually means "those with whom you are unable to have sex". I am immune to flu will mean that flu virus cannot infect me. I am immune to sex would mean that no one can have sex with me. So if "mohsanaat" are "immune" that would make "fatayaat" "non-immune" which is nonsensical.
Mohsanaat cannot mean "chaste" women, because they are contrasted with fatayaat in 425, which would make fatayaat "unchaste" and will be slanderous to them.
Mohsanaat cannot mean "married" women, because then it will be ok to get married to a married women per 424 i.e. MMA from the mohsanaat.
Mohsanaat can only mean "independent" women, because they are contrasted with fatayaat in 424, who are dependent on their guardian/family because we need to get permission from their guardian/family. So mohsanaat would be those women whom the men can marry without permission from anybody else except them. This would make them "independent".
Out of the mohsanaat/independent women and fatayaat, we can marry only those who are MMA. This would mean that the men have to first make mohsanaat or fatayaat their MMA, only then they can be married.
Once the dependent woman becomes MMA and then gets married, her marriage makes her "mohsana"/"independent" from her guardian/family per 425.
Mohsanaat/independent women will therefore include the following 3 categories
- Independent single women
- Independent married women
- Independent single women who you make an oath to get married to (MMA from mohsanaat)
Out of these 3 categories, only the third one is allowed to be married to per 424. This would mean that a man has to first make an oath to get married to the independent single woman, and only then he can get married to her. Therefore, oath to get married would be compulsory before marriage.
The already married women will not qualify for the allowed MMA from mohsanaat category, because they are not those whom YOU made an oath to, but they are already those whom SOMEONE ELSE made an oath to. So the married women cannot be YOUR MMA.
NO CONTRADICTIONS, NO CONFUSION.
MOHSANAAT = INDEPENDENT WOMEN
FATAYAAT = DEPENDENT WOMEN
MMA = Those with whom you made an oath to get married.It would make sense to be able to see each other's private parts before getting married to them but after making an oath to get married to them per 235-6 to make sure they don't have any STD's or deformities or impotence because that will have disastrous consequences if found after marriage. This oath is binding and will only be taken by believers so they will take it seriously and not make casual oaths just to check out someone's private parts. In addition to that, breaking this oath is not something casual but has a penalty
589 God will not hold you for your unintentional oaths, but He will hold you for what oaths you have made binding; its cancellation shall be the feeding of ten poor from the average of what you feed your family, or that you clothe them, or that you free a slave; whoever cannot find shall fast for three days; this is a cancellation for making your oaths when you swear. And be careful from making oaths. It is such that God clarifies for you His revelations that you may be thankful.
-
Samia , salam.
I get worked up when I find mature experienced members loose their bearing. Whatever, I will try and be more careful about my co descening attitude that you mentioned.
Trust me , when I say that I seriously evaluated your sexually disabled theory, but when I tried to fit that in some other ayas , It did not work out.
And I dont want to do your work, If you are so convinced about it, I think you have the talent to put it in one comprehensive form and show us all , as to how good it works in all the relevant ayas.
(Btw, my address was , samia and others, I am in knowledge of your disabled postulate since very long)
siki
Salaam siki
I haven't seen so far any constructive criticism from you to my understanding of MMA and Muhsanat, let alone any serious evaluation. When Tlepsh and Rassulhamsa expressed similar understanding, you rediculed them. Now Tlepsh again tried to show how the meaning fits elsewhere, and what he gets? A lol from you!
I do not want you to do my homework, you do not even know what my homework is. You just keep saying this "sexually disabled theory" bla bla...What don't you like in it in principle? Do you think that sexually disabled/disinterested people are rare? Do you think that those sexually disabled do not cause suffering to women/ muhsanat when they marry them without disclosing their problem? I have seen such cases more than you can imagine, even as recently as a few weeks ago. Isn't such a "crime" worth mentioning by God? Isn't it worth being addressed? -
Ok, here it is...
IMHO
The topic of "marriage"
Allah commands(in 2/282) that transactions be written down and witnessed, *unless it is a tijaaratun haaziratun, where the wage has been given on the spot.
** There is no punishment for not following these orders.
Keeping that in mind...
4/25 mentions a transaction between a man and a woman. In case the wage is not paid on the spot, it should be written down and witnessed. If the wage was paid on the spot, i.e. it was a tijaaratun haaziratun, and writing down, or even witnessing, is not required. They are now zawj of each other, or "husband" and "wife".
Therefore if a man and a woman want to have such a tijaaratun haziratun between themselves, in which no writing or witnessing is required, they are not to be blamed. If it was not tijaaratun haaziratun, but they still did not have the transaction written down and witnessed, they still cannot be punished*.
Going by this understanding, no one can be logically be accused of pre-marital sex.
To start with,
Going by this logic , if there is a child, and if the man wants/wanted , he can/could runway from the responsibility of fatherhood or supporting, leaving the two, all alone in this cruel world.
Yes he could. Does that somehow show that my understanding is un-Quranic?
Now you would come up with DNA genetic testing for paternity, but that is recent phenomena.
Would I? Have you seen me using those kind of arguments before? )
(Bro, let's settle the above dispute the best we can before moving on to others)
-
Salaam siki
I haven't seen so far any constructive criticism from you to my understanding of MMA and Muhsanat, let alone any serious evaluation. When Tlepsh and Rassulhamsa expressed similar understanding, you rediculed them. Now Tlepsh again tried to show how the meaning fits elsewhere, and what he gets? A lol from you!
I do not want you to do my homework, you do not even know what my homework is. You just keep saying this "sexually disabled theory" bla bla...What don't you like in it in principle? Do you think that sexually disabled/disinterested people are rare? Do you think that those sexually disabled do not cause suffering to women/ muhsanat when they marry them without disclosing their problem? I have seen such cases more than you can imagine, even as recently as a few weeks ago. Isn't such a "crime" worth mentioning by God? Isn't it worth being addressed?Dear Samia
To perform "sexually disabled marriage or sexless marriages" is a crime because right to have children and right for sexual gratification are forfeited on the part of the other partner.Which is definitely a CRIME in any civilized society.
If both partner know this fact and even then they agree to marry that is another issue.
Regards