Defenition of marriage suggests sex before marriage permitted?!
-
Ajr is a payment for work or services. That is the meaning of the word. It is mentionned and appointed in the Qur'an specifically for marriage to be given by the bridegroom to the bride. To say that it is for sexual services, meaning sexual pleasure relation, is gross and unjustified since it is supposed that the woman also gets her pleasure. But marriage entails reproduction or the possibility of it and the burden of reproduction or of its possibility falls disproportionatelly on the woman. If the man did not even out with the woman on this account, marriage would be grossly unfair to the woman. Therefore the Qur'an establishes it straightforwardly. And therefore, it is not a gift, a generous gift, but a means of equitable distribution and a condition. The amount and the modalities of payment must be agreed by the interested parties.
This is the part that is missing in the "Western" quest for equality between the sexes and many times the extra charge of women in the reproduction for society is not taken into account, so as if it did not exist. This difference on the burden placed by society and nature on woman is glossed over as if it didn't exist. There is some compensation though through social insurance schemes, although how good it is depends on the country and the social benefits it awards its population.
As a matter of common sense, it is obvious that any agreement is better written than non written, and any debt particularly, since it makes for clarity and certainty. I do not think that the Qur'an contradicts that.
Salaam
-
Dear sister Salaam
You said
Sister it would have been very reasonable if you had supported your claim with some evidence from the Quran.
I do not find any word "Muhassan".There is only one derivative of this form i.e "Muhassana" which is used as adjective of "villages" as being fortified. This word also is not used with reference to "women".5914
(5914) They will never fight you in a body (in the open field); if at all they fight, they will fight in fortified strongholds, or from behind walls. They are very intense in mutual enmity. You think that they are united, whereas their hearts are divided. *25 This is because they are a people devoid of sense.
If this word is used in the Quran anywhere else please guide us.
RegardsSalaam Truthseeker11
This is not a derivative, but the feminine of "muhassan". So what if it's used for villages? Can't we use (protected) for villages?!. This in fact goes against your theory immune is more used for humans than muhassan is. Actually, we do not use muhassan for humans, even if they are wearing armour. And muhsan can never be used for villages, but protected can be used for both. -
Peace Samia,
Who said "sexually immune"? I revised both my posts and Tlepsh's and could not find this expression. Pleas show me where any of us said "muhsan is one who is sexually immune".
As for the term muhsan per se, yes, it means immune, and I explained how it is wrong to translate it as "protected", because this meaning (i.e protected) is used in the qur'aan and the correct pattern is used "muhassan". Please don't haste to pick on imaginary mistakes. If the address in verse 424 is to the sexually disabled/disinterested, then it's unlawful to them to marry the immune women (immune from this disability) or as Tlepsh put it (immune sexually able).-
If the addressee in 424 are the sexually disabled/disinterested then 423 will have the same addressees also because 423 and 424 are to the same addressees. That would mean that all the categories mentioned in 423 are forbidden only to the sexually disabled/disinterested and that will mean that they are lawful to normal people, which will make it TOTALLY nonsensical.
-
If the addressees in 424 are the sexually disabled/disinterested, then where is the guidance for the normal people as EID has asked you many times?
-
Where in the qur'aan does it say that the addressees are the sexually disabled/disinterested?
-
If mohsanaat means "immune from this disability" then it will make fatayaat "not immune from this disability" because mohsanaat are being contrasted with fatayaat in 425. Using your definitions will result in an ABSOLUTELY nonsensical interpretation. Let's use your definitions
425 says that once the MMA from fatayaat or "not immune from this disability" get married and are given ujoor, will become mohsanaat or "immune to this disability". So that would mean that a sexually disabled woman will MAGICALLY become sexually able after getting married and paid ajr.
WOW, CURE FOR SEXUAL DISABILITY IS "GET MARRIED AND GET AJR" brickwall brickwall brickwall
DESERVES NOBEL PRIZE, doesn't it?
-
-
I agree with huruf re ajr, and would like to add that this ajr is not just for giving birth, but for all the other work a married woman takes care of. In Islamic countries, it's considered as the ultimate "role" of the wife to cook, clean ...etc, but God did not assign her this as a role but as a job to get ajr for. How I came to this understanding? First from the very meaning of the word "ajr", and secondly from the command that mothers are not "obliged" to nurse their babies, but if they do, they are to be paid for that. This is the atmost limit. If a mother is to be paid for nursing, then by logic a wife should be paid for the everyday services. Even if there are servants, she is the manager of the house, anywhere, any era...
-
Salaam Truthseeker11
This is not a derivative, but the feminine of "muhassan". So what if it's used for villages? Can't we use (protected) for villages?!. This in fact goes against your theory immune is more used for humans than muhassan is. Actually, we do not use muhassan for humans, even if they are wearing armour. And muhsan can never be used for villages, but protected can be used for both.Dear sister
Arabic is a very vast language.
If there is any example in arabic literature or Quran that word "Mohassana" is used for "woman" ,then no problem.
For villages and cities = Mohassana
For women = Mohsana.
It is just like this that is used only for animals never for human beings.
If Arabs have never used it (which I am not sure i.e why I am asking for evidence), there is no sense to "push" our own uses into the language. Because that is not acceptable at all.
Regards -
Peace Samia,
- If the addressee in 424 are the sexually disabled/disinterested then 423 will have the same addressees also because 423 and 424 are to the same addressees. That would mean that all the categories mentioned in 423 are forbidden only to the sexually disabled/disinterested and that will mean that they are lawful to normal people, which will make it TOTALLY nonsensical.
Salaam Truthseeker11, all
Why should 423 be to the same addressee? This is a shift in the addressee starting from 424. Without this understanding, muhsans are prohibited to all, and MMA are in opposition to muhsans. Then in verse 425 it says and whoever is unable to marry the muhsans...Why is there even an address to those who are unable to marry the muhsans if these muhsans are already prohibited to everyone?
- Where in the qur'aan does it say that the addressees are the sexually disabled/disinterested?
One has to have common sense because the qur'aan is for those who comprehend. You want a qur'aan for dummies. And from the very expression (and who lacks the ability to marry muhsans) and I use (lacks the ability) from the meaning of Tawl (ability) and not tool ( length; height)
From Al-3ain dictionary. .
Tawl abilityand in verse 986
Translation by Asad
for when they were called upon through revelation, "Believe in God, and strive hard together with His Apostle," such of them as were well able asked thee for exemption, saying, "Allow us to stay behind with those who remain at home!"- If mohsanaat means "immune from this disability" then it will make fatayaat "not immune from this disability" because mohsanaat are being contrasted with fatayaat in 425. Using your definitions will result in an ABSOLUTELY nonsensical interpretation. Let's use your definitions
It's you who claim that fatayat are in opposition to muhsans, and this is wrong and invalid Fatayat are the pool where you have muhsans, and if among these muhsans some accept a sexless marriage, then they will be MMA. Muhsan is in opposition to MMA, but still not contradictory to it.When a couple enter into this kind of sexless marriage, they are both MMA of each other, not zawj. So, even a muhsan can be MMA.
425 says that once the MMA from fatayaat or "not immune from this disability" get married and are given ujoor, will become mohsanaat or "immune to this disability". So that would mean that a sexually disabled woman will MAGICALLY become sexually able after getting married and paid ajr.
I repeat again MMA is not the opposite of muhsan. They are a sub category of muhsan as per verse 424 and (prohibited are) the muhsan EXCEPT what MMA
WOW, CURE FOR SEXUAL DISABILITY IS "GET MARRIED AND GET AJR"
Who says it's a cure? It's a solution for those who are unable to have the standard marriage. And yes, pay them ajr, because marriage is not all about sex.
At least it's better than marry for sex and pay for this service. -
Dear sister
Arabic is a very vast language.
If there is any example in arabic literature or Quran that word "Mohassana" is used for "woman" ,then no problem.
For villages and cities = Mohassana
For women = Mohsana.
It is just like this that is used only for animals never for human beings.
If Arabs have never used it (which I am not sure i.e why I am asking for evidence), there is no sense to "push" our own uses into the language. Because that is not acceptable at all.
RegardsWhat do you want to say? That to say (this person is fortified) we should use (muhsan) and say this person is muhsan?! What does this mean? Does God ever use this verb to mean (He protects us)?
These two adjectives are derived from two different verbs with two different forms
muhassan from hassana (form II)
muhsan from ahsana (form IV),
Unless you want to tell me that difference in verb forms is meaningless. -
What do you want to say? That to say (this person is fortified) we should use (muhsan) and say this person is muhsan?! What does this mean? Does God ever use this verb to mean (He protects us)?
These two adjectives are derived from two different verbs with two different forms
muhassan from hassana (form II)
muhsan from ahsana (form IV),
Unless you want to tell me that difference in verb forms is meaningless.Dear sister
Do you have any evidence that 'hassana" is used for the "females" ?
If yes I surrender
If no --------- even then I surrender because contiueing it will lead to basless argumentation.Note Dear Sister
Now I am satisfied because I got an example .Thanks for it
So = SURRENDERED handshake handshake
Regards -
Salaam student!
This is the opposite of what I say.I agreeSalaam sister
With evidence ,discussion is fruitful. Without evidence it is baseless and useles.
I accept when there is proper evidence not like those who prove to be subborn.
I myself found the evidence and surrendered.
Regards -
Salaam sister
With evidence ,discussion is fruitful. Without evidence it is baseless and useles.
I accept when there is proper evidence not like those who prove to be subborn.
I myself found the evidence and surrendered.
RegardsSalaam student!
I agree, again . and I salute you for this high spirit.
-
Regarding this 4.24, I think I follow Samia's reasoning. I also find that in view of its formulation 4.23 ends something, but for that same reason I find it difficult to ascertain the addressee in 4.24, because if it has finished addressing somebody in 4.23 why should it continue prohibiting likewise en 4.24, that is, it continues prohiting, but no to the same people, how do we now that there is a new addressee and who that adressee is? This is my question, Samia, if you kindly can answer it.
Concerning the ajr and your coment to my post, I think that housechores are a completely different department of reproduction burden or its possibility. Household chores can be done by either sex, if they are not it is not out of sheer impossibility, but of convention or some other cause. Whereas in the reproduction burden there is no choice. A woman can refuse, in priciple to take on any household chores she doesn't want or consider fair to assume, since she is not the only one able to do them, but reproduction burden, is hers, even to her dislike. It cannot be imposed through a raffle. Therefore the universal imposition of ajr in the Qur'an is justified. And even in sexless marriages, assuming their actuality, sex is there, and the burden of reproduction exists for the woman even without reproduction, because the mere fact that a woman theoretically might get pregnant is a burden even from birth. In the same way that army conscription is a burden for men where it exists even if there is no war ever. There might be a war. Women miss out on many things by the mere possibilities their sex evoques.
Of course, if a woman is assuming jobs beside that reproductive burden, those can be quantified and contractually agreed. Interestingly, even the possibility of outsourcing suckling and considering it a job, is there. The Qur'an is magnificent and its light on unswerving equity is really NUR.
And let me take advantage of your patience to highlight that the Qur'an is so insightful in this matter when nobody, even those most advanced in gender equality and so on, have put their finger on this kind of sexual and gender equity and justice, and this is one of the things in which the Qur'an opened my eyes to many aspects that are never brought to light. Of course there is plenty of tradition to push underground what the Qur'an brought to light, but nevertheless it is there and we can always do like we do here, try to bring out its treasures.
Thanks for your patience.
Salaam
-
Salaam huruf
Thanks for trying to understand my point and asking meaningful questions, as this will help me calrify it better.
how do we now that there is a new addressee and who that adressee is?
Verse 424 prohibits a category of women (muhsans) and allows a part of them (MMA). This partial prohibition should alert us to the difference with the complete prohibition in the preceding two verses (422 and 423). Besides, these (muhsans) from whom a category is prohbited, are spoken of positively in the whole qur'aan, therefore, the poblem is not with them, but with those who are prohibited from marrying them.
Furthermore, verse 425 speaks of some who do not have (the ability) to marry these muhsans, and suggests a solution for them MMA. Now we know why they are prohibited from marrying them. These two main points make me certain that the addressee has changed from verse 422-23. To be more precise, the address has narrowed down to a specific category those who do not have the ability to marry the muhsans. This ability is not money, as this has been addressed in another verse and the advice for them was to apply self restraint. Besides, the lack of money does not make the "expensive" goods prohibited. Verse 425 does not show us that MMA are less "expensive" to marry, since they will still receive their ajr.
I hope I have clarified my reasons for this understanding.
-
Salaam huruf
Thanks for trying to understand my point and asking meaningful questions, as this will help me calrify it better.
Verse 424 prohibits a category of women (muhsans) and allows a part of them (MMA). This partial prohibition should alert us to the difference with the complete prohibition in the preceding two verses (422 and 423). Besides, these (muhsans) from whom a category is prohibited, are spoken of positively in the whole qur'aan, therefore, the problem is not with them, but with those who are prohibited from marrying them.
Furthermore, verse 425 speaks of some who do not have (the ability) to marry these muhsans, and suggests a solution for them MMA. Now we know why they are prohibited from marrying them. These two main points make me certain that the addressee has changed from verse 422-23. To be more precise, the address has narrowed down to a specific category those who do not have the ability to marry the muhsans. This ability is not money, as this has been addressed in another verse and the advice for them was to apply self restraint. Besides, the lack of money does not make the "expensive" goods prohibited. Verse 425 does not show us that MMA are less "expensive" to marry, since they will still receive their ajr.
I hope I have clarified my reasons for this understanding.
- It is very logical that some people may not be able to marry a mohsinnat tul mominnat, as they may not be able to afford to pay them an appropriate ajar. This is how it has been all along, rich and beautiful woman of status would never be affordable by a poor man.
2.Then God cautions such men (24-33, who cant afford to marry) to exercise restraint , and stay chaste by not indulging in fornication.
- Now comes 4-25, same situation, but God provides an alternate for these guys by telling them , that first it is better if you exercise restraint, but if you fear falling in sin, then,as a last resort option, get married to a believing young MMA.
Samia, Now these MMA girls when taken up in protection of a wed lock, if they commit fahisha, .. If these woman are sexually disabled , how come they would commit fahishas as per 4-25 ?
-
Yes, they(mma) will be much cheaper to marry , almost free, because they are being freed from MMA hood, where they provide sex and get nothing in return.
-
Here God specially mentioned , that as she will be more than willing to be upgraded and hence may not demand anything, but you must pay them ajar(off course what ever little that he could afford) exactly like what you would do for marriage to a mohsinna.
peace
siki
sun -
ladies, I appreciate your comrade ship, ( you scratch my back and i do yours theory )
when it doesn't suit you, you talk of gender equality, and give any meaning to a simple and straight understanding, No matter how weird it is like sexually disabled theory.
Where is yours demand for equality gone , when you justify ajar as a payment for producing children and taking care of them? Are they not more yours than his?
And then also , you would think of an imaginary postulate in a simple straight forward situation described in Quran.
Where is it written in 4-24 that these women are being paid ajar for child bearing and looking after the house? The simple word is ajar for sex. that is what quran says.And in the absence of any marriage contract word(nikah) in 4-24, it simply is an agreed some to provide pleasure to the man who can afford it. And after that there is no obligation.
4-24 And you do above, with Mohsinnats of Nissa. illa mma. (Because your mma is free)
And then you may also opt for a long term relationship (nikah) with Mohsinnats of mominnat category , not only for sex but also for producing children and taking some kind of care as well. (4-25 , If you cant nikah with mohsinnat ul mominnate)
siki
-
Truthseeker peace
Whenever we owe ANYTHING we are COMMANDED to have a written contract. It doesn't matter if it is a pen or a fist of sand. DYN refers to any debt or anything owed. Once again, if there was a minimum value, then the god would have specified the value.
This is tricky. On one hand i think your right in the sense that the value would have been specified as the book is complete. On the other hand, it seems ridiculous to go through the process described in 2282 just to borrow or lend a pen. This would go completely against reason and place unecessary hardship.
Admitively i would not go through this process because it's strongly against my reason and i think i'd be held accountable more for going against my reason. I would like to say that the verse implies things of high intrinsic value but the literal translation prevents me. Still, i consider reason to be a more stronger source of guidance in this case as in this case something from the Quran may have been missed or misunderstood by us. For me this is evident in how we change our views and understanding on things with respect to the Quran.
"and she accepts it" is mutual agreement. If she agrees to sand as ajr for the marriage then your obligation is fulfilled.
Ok everything i say about ajr from here is going towards a big picture. It seems unreasonable at first but once you get to my conclusion, hopefully you'll understand me so please be patient don't form any judgements untill you get to the end of this ajr section.
I though on this alot and came to this idea
Ajr is not instructed to be mutually agreed (Quran) thus suggesting that one can just give anything they want as a means of ajr without saying that this is your ajr. If it had to be mutually agreed then i would think differently.
Your probably thinking that this is forcing ajr
She can easily not accept it and then you will have to give her something else until it is acceptable to her. You cannot force her to accept something against her wishes as ajr.
I know you can't force her but you can't fault with Quranic proof that if I offer sand as a means of ajr after the nika process that we are not technically married because
I have fulfilled my obligation even if i have not told her this is her ajr. I have offered a gift. If it is rejected (as in their not happy and want a better gift) then that does not take away from my obligation being fulfilled (can you reject via quranic proof?). Think about this. [bThe big picture is soon gonna come up
The following things can happen after i offer sand
- She accepts and we're married continuing our relationship (sex allowed as it is within marriage)
- She rejects but we're still married. She still wants a relationship thus marriage continues (sex allowed as it is within marriage and ajr has been offered)
- She rejects but we're still married however she is from somewhere in which ajr is understood to be a lump sum and refuses to continue the relationship untill i pay her ?X (for portection). Technically we are still married but she refuses to go further into the relationship untill i give her ?X for protection and i refuse this, then that means divorce.
Ultimately this means if my spouse does not feel protected and thinks she needs ?X to be protected, then this is different to ajr This is something that's mutually agreed after the ajr and she could label this ajr however quranically it's not ajr. It's then up to me and her to come to a solution. If she dislikes or feels unprotected of the fact that i refuse to give her ?X, then she can divorce because she would feel unprotected unless ?X falls into place. Obviously she would not have sex untill she feels protected thus the divorce is straight forward. just like a seperation only now i have to pay recompense according to my means (which serves me right ;D for marrying someone in this manner)
This however would mean that ajr is something ridiculous and pointless which i would think is not based on the compulsion in the Quran.
Thus (big picture) i think our understanding of ajr is wrong (one off reward) Perhaps in the prophet's time it had a different function and that a one off reward was acceptable. However in a different context, this could be different.
I was thinking about the word fareeda which occures after ajr and how it can be transalted as the word (ordained) what would this mean??
Could the word ordain not imply to give ajr appropriate to context???424 .........give them their dowers as prescribed (prescribed by circumstance?? by God??)
In western context, the presciption of ajr= nothing?? hmm
Perhaps Ajr can be both ongoing and lump sum. then again ongoing would not make sense based on
424...............There is no sin upon you for what you agree to after the obligation
By the would this make the fareeda understanding as context falese as fareeda occures twice in 424?Meaning that at some point the obligation must end brickwall
The only compulsory gift/reward given upon getting married is ajr. This has been called "fareeda" in 424, and is being called "mata3" in 2236.
Ajr is the reward/gift for marriage. 2236 talks about the scenario after getting married where the ajr has not been stipulated/specified yet and you want to divorce her. Ajr has not been specified yet but it is compulsory to be given after nikah and is owed. So now if you divorce her, this ajr HAS TO BE PAID. Therefore, this MATA3/gift mentioned in 2236 can only be referring to the ajr that is owed, and because its amount has not been specified yet, the god is telling us to give according to our means. This shows that ajr amount is according to one's means.
Not sure on this. Where ajr is called fareeda it is clear. this is not the same in 2236. This compulsory recompense can be other then ajr. "mata3" could be a category of it's own which only applies when ajr is absent. Just becuase it's there when ajr is absent, it dosn't make it ajr.
What puzzles me is that here it's specified "the rich according to his means......" where as this is not done in ajr confused
Why don't you get the same feeling about sex? According to the same line of reasoning, you don't have to discuss having sex with your wife; instead you can forcefully have sex with her even when she does not want to have sex at that particular time for some reason ----> which is called rape. You cannot FORCE anything upon your wife. She has to accept it which then becomes MUTUAL AGREEMENT. This is common sense, not rocket science.
I know but your not forcing ajr. Your fulfilling your obligation. This line of reasoning is different.
Replace ajr with sex, then you can't rape her because if she refuses then you have no right but you can say that because you offered it, you are technically (in terms of Quran) marriedWhich sounds stupid yuck
In 2235 there is no mention of any "oath/meethaaq/aymaan/3aqad" or "ma malakat aymaanukum". What is being mentioned is "khitbaat al-nisa" which has been translated as "proposal". In your culture "proposal" and "oath" might be the same thing but according to the qur'aanic terminology, they seem to be different things.
"Khitbaat al-nisa" can be done publicly or secretly, so no witnesses needed. I think that it is not an engagement proposal, but sort of like a "dating proposal", meaning something like "I will like to get to know you for the purpose of eventually getting married to you if we are compatible". If she agrees, then she becomes your "girlfriend", but you cannot meet her secretly unless it is for the righteous reasons, you have to protect your private parts from her, and of course no sex.
Second stage is when you make an "engagement proposal", or "oath to get married". This will make her your fiance or "ma malakat aymanukum". This will fall under Ba-Ya-Ayn, necessitating it to be witnessed. You can meet her secretly, you don't have to protect your private parts from her, and of course no sex.
Third stage is nikah/marriage which will require it to be witnessed and ajr to be given, written contract only if ajr is delayed, and finally ....... you can have sex with her
I propose (khitbaat al-nisa) she accepts (this could be in secret). Once this happens
- you automatically have taken an oath before God to be faithful. delcaring this outloud makes hardly any difference.
- once this news spreads then witnesses have been fulfilled and they are aware that you are in this relationship, this means that that they are aware of your oath.
Question is what's ajr. I can justify Quranically that a box of chocolates can be ajr and this could go well with my heart and reasoning depending on the context. I am however uncomfortable with this understanding to be ajr.
This is the post I am referring to which you still have not commented on
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9598241.msg201162#msg201162
To be honest with you i was first concerned on getting the issue of ajr understood before moving on to witnesses. Thus your post on witnesses i remember looking at however i did not verify anything as i was not concerned on that issue.
I Should have said this there and then.
I think i forgot thus i apologise again -[ -
- It is very logical that some people may not be able to marry a mohsinnat tul mominnat, as they may not be able to afford to pay them an appropriate ajar. This is how it has been all along, rich and beautiful woman of status would never be affordable by a poor man.
Salaam siki
Now you are giving a new meaning to Muhsanat rich , beautiful and of status! So God prohibits the poor from marrying them as per 424! At least you acknowledge that the address in 424 is specific to a category of people....the poor. We are advancing.... albeit very very slowly.
Verse 2432 does not give description of women some people can not afford, but speaks of the marriage per seLet those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until Allah gives them means out of His grace.
- Yes, they(mma) will be much cheaper to marry , almost free, because they are being freed from MMA hood, where they provide sex and get nothing in return.
First MMA are a sub category of the muhsanat, and are not sex slaves
Also (prohibited are) muhsans, except those whom your right hands possess
Secondly They are not free
then (he may marry) of those whom your right hands possess from among your believing maidens; and Allah knows best your faith you are (sprung) the one from the other; so marry them with the permission of their fmily, and give them their ajr justly,
Samia, Now these MMA girls when taken up in protection of a wed lock, if they commit fahisha, .. If these woman are sexually disabled , how come they would commit fahishas as per 4-25
MMA are not the opposite of Muhsans. They are a sub category of them. They can be sexually able but agree to marry a sexaly disabled, and they both become MMA each other. Because they have no access to sex, this factor is taken into consideration and becomes a mitigating factor calling for half the punishment when they search for sex elsewhere. If they were slaves or poor, they should rather have this poverty and lack of freedom taken as a mitigating factor for stealing.
- Here God specially mentioned , that as she will be more than willing to be upgraded
How is she going to be upgraded to a beautiful, free, rich woman of status after having married a poor man?! We are not even told that the "husband" would buy her, but according to you would just take permission from her master . She will not be upgraded even to a free woman.
I do not even understand why the master will give her up for free! -
Where is yours demand for equality gone , when you justify ajar as a payment for producing children and taking care of them? Are they not more yours than his?
Please read again the post you are referring to . Nobody is speaking about whose the children are. Actually they are neither the father's nor the mother's. They are not property, and nobody has said anything on this respect. What has been said is that the burden of reproduction, the part that cannot be redistributed, falls disproportionately on the woman. This is very plain, but you can always throw a tantrum about it.
Where is it written in 4-24 that these women are being paid ajar for child bearing and looking after the house. The simple word is ajar for sex. that is what quran says.
"De pi??n fijo" we say in Spanish of somebody who no matter what will always end up talking about the ONE thing that really matters, normally sex. Enjoy the association with a woman doesn't mean just the f... word. It doesn't say in 4.42 that it is the sex exercise part that they have enjoyed. And if it was that that would be a very good reason not to pay ajar, unless the woman also pays ajar, because she is not meant in the Qur'an not to extract pleasure, or can you prove that the Qur'an means the woman not to experience pleasure with sex? And even if you use the woman just for the lustful pleasure, you are not getting rid of the reproductive nature of the woman, so what you are purporting may make sense to people without a moral sense and without the will to get it, but not to the people the Qur'an is addressed to.
And in the absence of any marriage contract word(nikah) in 4-24, it simply is an agreed some to provide pleasure to the man who can afford it. And after that there is no obligation.
Of course it is you who says the part in red. The Qur'an does not say it. In fact if a child is born of that pleasure, are you saying that the Qur'an means the father is under no obligation whatsoever?
Man, women do not need any backscratching. What you say there is bewildering, wild. In fact what you are pushing is that very western women liberation stuff you say you abhorr so much.
Salaam
-
Salaam
It seems our ideas are from different angles. I am not saying housechores cannot be shared, or they are the woman's "role". But as a matter of fact, women are the pro settlment side of the couple, and they are by nature more pro life, so it comes normal to their nature that they do these chores more than the husband, but God is granting them a paid "ajr" for that, a proof that it's not their duty.
As for pregnancy and child birth, I do not think that God assigned any role, other than this, to a human. It's even the only reason mentioned for the status of "both" parents the father is to be elevated to this status thanks to this "motherhood
3114
And We have enjoined man in respect of his parents-- his mother bears him with faintings upon faintings "
Such a role is too honourable to be paid for. It's priceless.