How sex before Marriage is not haram (prohibited) according to the Quran
-
Going by that the modern equivalent is not girlfriend and boyfriend but fiance and fiancee. With the first case there is no real oath but the latter indicates a promise to be bound. It's funny how the dowry has gone from something useful to a useless shiny rock encased in metal.
However why would it say that if you cannot marry an independent woman then marry an MMA?
Also how people can deduce that God the pure and most good permits rape is beyond me. Dress it up as much as they want with the "prisoners of war" crap, nobody wants that happening to their own daughters/wives/mothers.
I don't know if you can say that boyfriend and grilfriend is not an oath. Yes it may not be formal but in all realities there is an oath. Or else none of the partners will get upset if the other cheats.
-
I don't know if you can say that boyfriend and grilfriend is not an oath. Yes it may not be formal but in all realities there is an oath. Or else none of the partners will get upset if the other cheats.
Shalom Aleikhem,
I guess that depends on your understanding of "oath". If you think about it, there is a sense of oath/commitment between a prostitute and his/her client. Ofcourse both would feel betrayed if the other one betrays.
By the way, I have not read your views on the topic of the thread. I am just commenting on this specific post I quoted. )
Peace
------------ Student of Allah -
To be more precise, it is not a formal oath. Boyfriend-girlfriend is barely a step or two above total casual sex. The bond is still disposable, it's even called 'getting dumped'. It's treated differently by different people whereby to some it's like marriage, to others it's a sex contract to be made and broken at will thus making it a really ambiguous term. Marriage is the same everywhere monogamous with both sides heavily invested emotionally and financially.
The gist of 423-25 is that the relationship must be explicitly declared and known this person is with that person, nobody else is to go between them.
Anyway MMA cannot be 'slave girls'/'prisoners of war' because in 419 believers are forbidden from taking girls against their will in the first place. Now I'm confused, why is there so much frenzied discussion on here and elsewhere about 'slave girls'/'prisoners of war' when 419 obviously forbids this in the first place? I assume that the prisoners of war obviously would not consent to any supposed marriage. Am I missing something?
-
Shalom Aleikhem,
I guess that depends on your understanding of "oath". If you think about it, there is a sense of oath/commitment between a prostitute and his/her client. Ofcourse both would feel betrayed if the other one betrays.
Excuse me?! Say what?? I think everyone here can agree that the above is absolute nonsense. There is no love/commitment in a "relationship" between a prostitute and someone who uses/pays for this service. There is no oath/commitment involved - it is merely a service.
-
To be more precise, it is not a formal oath. Boyfriend-girlfriend is barely a step or two above total casual sex. The bond is still disposable, it's even called 'getting dumped'. It's treated differently by different people whereby to some it's like marriage, to others it's a sex contract to be made and broken at will thus making it a really ambiguous term. Marriage is the same everywhere monogamous with both sides heavily invested emotionally and financially.
There are people who live together and spend the rest of their lives together in a sexual/caring relationship without getting married..
Furthermore, what you said above is clearly not the case. Just look at Middle Eastern and Arabic countries where polygamy is a common practice and other cultures who have completely different practices from the West.You can also easily get a divorce - there is the same pain as in a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship and it is very easy to get a divorce, at least in the Western World.
The gist of 423-25 is that the relationship must be explicitly declared and known this person is with that person, nobody else is to go between them.
People know when others are together in a relationship, as long as one is not completely ignorant, blind and/or stupid. Not only marriage has that characteristic.
-
Excuse me?! Say what?? I think everyone here can agree that the above is absolute nonsense. There is no love/commitment in a "relationship" between a prostitute and someone who uses/pays for this service. There is no oath/commitment involved - it is merely a service.
Shalom aleikhem,
Sorry Sir but I beg to differ. It all depends on the definition of commitment. What do you mean when you say commitment.
I think you are defining commitment as an emotional debt. But then again, it is not impossible to hurt a prostitute's feelings by not paying him/her after their service. And obviously I also do not agree that "commitment" is absent from services based on money.
( Just for the record of whoever cares, I am not advocating for or against prostitution in this and my earlier post. It is just a part of my thought based entirely around BIGMO's remarks on boyfriend-girlfriend relationship that I quoted in my previous post)
Peace
------------ Student of Allah -
Sorry Sir but I beg to differ. It all depends on the definition of commitment. What do you mean when you say commitment.
I think you are defining commitment as an emotional debt. But then again, it is not impossible to hurt a prostitute's feelings by not paying him/her after their service. And obviously I also do not agree that "commitment" is absent from services based on money.
He pays, they have sex. She goes on to the next client. He goes on to then next prostitute. That's it. What oath/commitment do you see in that? The "hurting feelings" argument is weak. Usually payment is upfront, and, if not, then I would assume that more than mere "feelings are hurt".
There has to be an oath/commitment in the relationship that makes it long-term and that involves, care/love and loyalty towards one another, as explained quite a few times in this thread by various people.
Also, I am assuming you are taking back your earlier points about marriage?
-
Shalom Aleikhem,
I guess that depends on your understanding of "oath". If you think about it, there is a sense of oath/commitment between a prostitute and his/her client. Ofcourse both would feel betrayed if the other one betrays.
By the way, I have not read your views on the topic of the thread. I am just commenting on this specific post I quoted. )
Peace
------------ Student of AllahSo its a financial arrangement and not an emotional or sexual one. The verses about MMA was dealing with sexual arrangement and it specifically said that the arrangement should not be based on lust alone.
MMA is not a boyfriend grifriend arrangement anyways, its a urfi marriage. A concubinage arrangement. But I define Zina as being betrayal. So the boyfriend and grilfriend arrangement is applicable for Zina. That is cheating here is Zina.
-
He pays, they have sex. She goes on to the next client. He goes on to then next prostitute. That's it. What oath/commitment do you see in that? The "hurting feelings" argument is weak. Usually payment is upfront, and, if not, then I would assume that more than mere "feelings are hurt".
There has to be an oath/commitment in the relationship that makes it long-term and that involves, care/love and loyalty towards one another, as explained quite a few times in this thread by various people.
Also, I am assuming you are taking back your earlier points about marriage?
Shalom Aleikhem,
Ohh.. so we are talking about long term commitment. Well, one could argue about being a sugar daddy What is care/love for you may not be the same for me. Regardless, as I stated in my previous posts, I am only playing around with words and their meanings and our perception. Nothing serious.
What point did I make earlier about marriage ? Sorry, cant remember. Would you mind quoting what you are referring to ?
So its a financial arrangement and not an emotional or sexual one. The verses about MMA was dealing with sexual arrangement and it specifically said that the arrangement should not be based on lust alone.
MMA is not a boyfriend grifriend arrangement anyways, its a urfi marriage. A concubinage arrangement. But I define Zina as being betrayal. So the boyfriend and grilfriend arrangement is applicable for Zina. That is cheating here is Zina.
I understood your point
Peace
------------- Student of Allah -
Peace Bigmo
I'm sorry for the late replys. It's been the last few days of my degree and i've been busy with saying goodbyes and packing stuff to return home. I'm home now and should have more time.
The verse starts by saying for those who can not marry the fatiyat. So the rest of the verse must be talking about the alternative, which is MMA.
425 And whoever of you cannot afford to marry the independent female believers, then from those maintained by your oaths of the believing young women. And God is more aware of your faith, some of you to each other. You shall marry them with the permission of their parents and give them their dowries in kindness; to be independent, not for illicit sex or taking lovers. When they become independent, then any of them who come with lewdness shall have half of what is the punishment for those independent. This is for those who are concerned about deviating from among you. But if you are patient it is better for you, and God is Forgiver, Merciful.
I'm not good with Arabic but going by the free-minds translation and also a look on corpus suggests that those who can't marry the muhsinat, should marry the fataya that are of MMA. Which implies that both the muhsinat and the fatayat must be of MMA before being permissible for marriage.
If we take the previous scriptures, then we have concubines along side wives. For me its a best way to understand these verses althought not perfect. I could be wrong of course.
Could this work with the idea that before marrying the muhsinat and the fatayat, they must first become a concubine?
-
Salam nimnimak
My understanding of the matter is that you can only have sex with spouses and MMA, as the Quran mentions that we should guard our genitalia from anyone except spouses (which can be boy/girlfriends, husbands/wives, concubines, lovers etc.) and MMA.
What I don't understand is how do you think a one night stand is allowed? Do you consider the partner in a one night stand as a spouse?
Salam Red
Sorry for the late reply
From a rational perspective, I no longer agree with the idea of a one night stand but from a Quranic perspective (as far as I understand now) so long as there is an oath between the two in the one night stand, then it's ok but there is something that i discovered recently which complicates things. I'l post it at the end of these replys.
-
Excuse me?! Say what?? I think everyone here can agree that the above is absolute nonsense. There is no love/commitment in a "relationship" between a prostitute and someone who uses/pays for this service. There is no oath/commitment involved - it is merely a service.
Yes I agree that there is no love commitment, but is that necessary? There is still an oath and the service may be deemed acceptable in light of the Quran. As in its not punishable perhaps. My understanding is that so long as there is a mutual agreement, and that the mutual agreement is not transgressive or constitute lewdness, then its ok. Some would view prostitution as lewd, others may not.
-
So its a financial arrangement and not an emotional or sexual one. The verses about MMA was dealing with sexual arrangement and it specifically said that the arrangement should not be based on lust alone.
Which verse was this?
-
Another verse to consider is
2237 And if ye divorce them before tamasshunna, but after the fixation of a dower for them, then the half of the dower (Is due to them), unless they remit it or (the man's half) is remitted by him in whose hands is the marriage tie; and the remission (of the man's half) is the nearest to righteousness. And do not forget Liberality between yourselves. For Allah sees well all that ye do.
The root of tamassuhunna
Miim-Siin-Siin = To meet or touch or feel a thing with the hand, touch a thing without intervention or interference, strike or smite, afflict or befall, be distressing or difficult of accomplishment.
You might wanna check out the following links for more details on the potential meanings of this roothttp//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume7/00000239.pdf
http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume7/00000240.pdf
One argument for sex being exclusive to marriage is perhaps 2237 and the use of the word tamassuhunna. If the word means touch, then we need to determine what kind of touch is being talked about here. It would be highly unreasonable to think that any sort of physical contact is constituted as tamassuhunna in the context of 2237. Here is a cross-reference of the term in the Quran
http//corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=mss#(22376)
In 347 it is clear that Mary is referring to the sort of touch that potentially leads to a child
She said "My Lord, how can I have a son when no human being has been with me?" He said "It is thus that God creates what
He wills, when He decrees a command, He merely says to it 'Be,' and it is.Thus from this we might say that in 2237, tamassuhunna refers to the sort of touch that leads to a child. This means unprotected sex. However since protected sex does not 100 percent guarantee to prevent potential pregnancies and is thus not 100 percent protection, then it must be the case that it is not a sufficient measure.
So it might be argued that whilst we can unguard our private parts to MMAs, there is a limit put on us by 2237
But 2237 does not appear to prohibit sex with MMA. It suggests that when there is a marriage contract, the following laws must be in place. This does not encompass, MMA as far as i can see but its worth consideration. -
It is worth looking at some translations of the word MMA; Please see the translations of Asad & Shabir;
Edip-Layth 7030 Except around their spouses or those committed to by oath, there is no blame.
The Monotheist Group 7030 Except around their spouses or those committed to by oath, there is no blame
Muhammad Asad 7030 with any but their spouses - that is, those whom they rightfully possess - 13 for then, behold, they are free of all blame,
Shabbir Ahmed 7030 They have intimate relations only with their spouses - that is, those who are rightfully theirs through wedlock. For such relationship they are free of blame. 4
The MMA's are your legal wives , not women for use and dispose of or rather not take any responsibility for.
-
Which verse was this?
4.25. If any of you have not the means wherewith to wed chaste believing women, they may wed believing girls from among those whom your right hands possess And Allah hath full knowledge about your faith. Ye are one from another Wed them with the leave of their owners, and give them their dowers, according to what is reasonable They should be chaste, not lustful, nor taking paramours when they are taken in wedlock, if they fall into shame, their punishment is half that for free women. This (permission) is for those among you who fear sin; but it is better for you that ye practise self-restraint. And Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
-
Couldn't it be argued that this is only in the case of when an MMA is being considered for marriage that it should be the case that they are for example not lustful? It doesn't really cover the idea that an MMA necessarily must be a bond that involves love and affection. But that if an MMA is considered for marriage, then it should be the case that the MMA has those attributes.
-
It is worth looking at some translations of the word MMA; Please see the translations of Asad & Shabir;
Edip-Layth 7030 Except around their spouses or those committed to by oath, there is no blame.
The Monotheist Group 7030 Except around their spouses or those committed to by oath, there is no blame
Muhammad Asad 7030 with any but their spouses - that is, those whom they rightfully possess - 13 for then, behold, they are free of all blame,
Shabbir Ahmed 7030 They have intimate relations only with their spouses - that is, those who are rightfully theirs through wedlock. For such relationship they are free of blame. 4
The MMA's are your legal wives , not women for use and dispose of or rather not take any responsibility for.
Peace 357
Apologies for late reply,
I don't agree with their interpretation because there is a word that seperates zawj and MMA in that verse
http//corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=23&verse=6It might be argued that the use of the word "or" conveys that the status of MMA is entailed by being zawj . They are zawj and that to be zawj it must be the case that they are of those whom your oaths possess, but I can't see why MMA would then be mentioned in the verse if it is entailed by zawj.
Also if you look at 423-24, it implies that a zawj is different to an MMA. You marry an MMA, it is not the case that the MMA is already your zawj. So there is a distinction between the two as far as I can see.
not women for use and dispose of or rather not take any responsibility for
If both sides are reasonably in agreement, then both sides are responsible not just the man. So if it becomes the case that the woman gets pregnant or catches an STD, she did what she did knowing the risks. She is responsible for that. Similarly, if the man gets her pregnant or he catches an STD, then he is responsible for that because he got himself involved knowing the risks. It may be that what he did ultimately resulted in more gain than harm or more harm than gain but I don't see anything inherently wrong in having sex just for the sake of pleasure.
The question is whether the risks involved are justified from a moral perspective. Unwanted Kids and STDs lead me to believe that unless it is 100 percent safe, then it is not justified. Thus I would argue something like anything with the exception of penetration is acceptable with an MMA so long as it does not constitute lewdness or transgression. But I don't think anything is inherently wrong in having sex outside of marriage.
There is also another thing to consider. What if a couple who are not married want to have kids without being married. Is there any good reason to stop them from doing so?
-
Couldn't it be argued that this is only in the case of when an MMA is being considered for marriage that it should be the case that they are for example not lustful? It doesn't really cover the idea that an MMA necessarily must be a bond that involves love and affection. But that if an MMA is considered for marriage, then it should be the case that the MMA has those attributes.
MMA arrangements are open for abuse. Its identical to whats known as a urfi marriage. MMA usually does not have strong family backing and financial backing and often can be abused. The Quran did acknowledge such arrangement but encouraged its elevation to a proper marriage by informing family and establishing dowry.
Stunning revelation
"I didn't hide," a young woman named Hend El-Hinnawi said, live on prime-time, state-run TV. "We are living in a very hypocritical society... and eventually he will have to give the baby his name." The 27-year-old stylist had stunned the Arab world by filing a paternity suit against actor Ahmed El-Fishawi, the son of two Egyptian film stars.
El-Hinnawi claimed she had been in a secret urfi marriage with El-Fishawi -- a controversial mode of amorous consummation increasingly prevalent between Egypt's young -- and that he had possession of the only copy of the marriage contract; they had fallen out, she said, when, on conceiving, in lawful if not officially registered wedlock, she refused to have an abortion. To file a paternity suit, El-Hinnawi had to wait until the birth of her daughter Lina; such is the legal prerequisite. Initially denying any connection with El-Hinnawi, claiming he had only known her as a colleague, El-Fishawi later conceded that they had had an affair, not a marriage. The court ruling arrived faster than expected, perhaps due to the media attention the case received, and though he is now required to take a DNA test, El-Fishawi is refusing to do so.
Many have sympathised with El-Hinnawi, but just as many condemned her for going public. The saga brought urfi marriage to the forefront of public discourse, underlining the fact that, according to Ministry of Social Affairs statistics, there are some 14,000 paternity cases currently at court. Of these, lawyers and sociologists attribute 70-90 percent to urfi marriage. The phenomenon increased dramatically in the last decade, spreading in response to unemployment and inflation -- factors that acted to delay the marriage age. A way of sidestepping the social-economic requirements of marriage, urfi is sanctioned by religious scholars like Sayed Abul-Fotouh, professor of Islamic studies at Ain Shams University, but only if the matrimonial conditions stipulated by Sharia (Islamic law) are obtained mutual consent; two male (or one male and two female) witnesses; a dowry paid to the bride; and ishhar (public announcement). "If one or more of these conditions are absent," Abul-Fotouh warns, "the marriage is illegitimate from the religious viewpoint." In Egypt and much of the Arab world -- for Muslims and non-Muslims alike -- legitimate sex requires marriage, especially for a woman, and especially for the first time. In the provinces, notably Upper Egypt, pregnancy out of wedlock still sometimes results in the father or brother killing his daughter or sister to uphold the honour of the family. More often, particularly for those to whom abortion (and increasingly, in the surreal morality of today, hymen repair surgery) is available, sex out of wedlock will remain a well kept secret.
El-Hinnawi went against the grain of Egypt's very social fabric by insisting on having the child, and in so doing setting off not only a nation- wide scandal, but a heated debate about clandestine marriage contracts in a conservative, religious society. "The whole of society says, 'it's shameful. It's a scandal. Go have an abortion'..." Thus Attiyat El-Abnoudi, a well-known documentary filmmaker who, after hearing about the case, became so involved in it that she is now Lina's godmother. "The importance of this case is that it is out in the open. The whole of society must ask whether this is a one off, or whether something is changing -- young people want to make love without getting married."
Insofar as issues of sex are increasingly present on Arab TV screens -- even religious talk shows, hosted by veiled young women, discuss the fine points of intercourse; movies portray hymen- restoration clinics as busy places -- such change is definitely underway. Four organisations -- the New Woman, the Woman's Issues Centre, the Egyptian Child Centre and the Helwan Association for Developing Society -- have launched public campaigns to support El-Hinnawi's mode of approaching the matter. In another country El-Hinnawi's story might have provoked little more than gossip. But in Egypt it has brought traditional values face to face with social realities, prompting a wide-range discussion of a topic on which most people will tend to keep their mouths firmly shut.
On a personal level, it has also had negative consequences for El-Hinnawi's extended family. The decision by her well-to-do parents (her father is an economist, her mother a psychology professor) to support their daughter's move was definitely not unanimously lauded. Led by one uncle, her mother's side of the family has cut off all contact, while her father's relatives have grown distant and formal.
The walli is not required if the woman is a widow or a divorcee" (for which read not a virgin), so elaborated Sanaa El- Shami, a women rights lawyer, "in which case she can be her own walli ". Nor is the dowry a vital part of the contract "The bridegroom can read out a few lines of the Quran -- and that works as a dowry." If not for mutual consent and witnesses, by contrast, the marriage would be batel (null and void). The state apparatus did not incorporate Muslim marriage until 1929, in fact. "Which means that all our forebears were technically in Urfi marriages," Ibrahim smiles. With a smaller population, he elaborated, people lived in social and cultural proximity. Contrary to the present, when "you can live in an apartment building for 15 years and not know who lives in the adjoining flat, everyone knew who everyone was married to a man was never in any position to disown his legitimate child." To this day many tribal communities continue to practise customary marriage, but since 1929, with the urban population explosion, the concept of Urfi became the secret mode of amorous union it now is, imbuing a largely unacceptable social practise with a false sense of legitimacy. Fatma El-Kellini, the Ain Shams University Sociology Department head, the custom began to spread in the mid-1990s, in response to deteriorating economic conditions -- unemployment and inflation -- which had acted to delay the marriage age. In comparison to its by now conventional counterpart -- a project in which families play as much of a part as the bride and groom -- Urfi marriage is both fast and inexpensive. In a Vogue interview published in May, El-Hinnawi said as much, explaining that she preferred "privacy and expediency" to months of inter-familial negotiation. "Many young couples do it on a whim. They think they're making their dream come true," El-Kellini commented. "They don't realise how devastating it can be for their lives -- especially for the girl, who will end up pregnant..."
Economic hardship is not the only factor, though. Ola, 26, was brought up by her aunt after her parents were separated; and none of her four siblings had any part to play in her life. At 15 her cousin Mohamed, 20 years her senior, proposed to her -- only to be turned down brutally by her aunt. When her parents died, one after the other, Ola felt even more isolated; she would reject one suitor after another, "because I couldn't trust them not to abuse me, having no one as I was", and when Mohamed, by then married with two children, proposed a Urfi arrangement, she conceded despite her aunt's refusal "He said he hated his wife, but didn't want to separate to protect his daughter; he was a wonderful father." Mohamed bought Ola a flat in 6th of October City, and they had a brief honeymoon before he failed to show up at his usual hour; when Ola called to find out what was wrong, she had the shock of her life "He'd been so nice, and loving. Everything I had imagined. Now he divorced me right there on the phone. He had just wanted me for sex, he said, and now he was satisfied. We were married for a total of 10 days." Like El-Hinnawi, Ola could not prove that she had been married "This was his condition, that the paper should stay with him." Desperately, she filed a proof-of-marriage suit, which was eventually rejected "No evidence."
While Ola blamed her choice of Urfi marriage on difficult circumstances, Mahmoud Ahmed, head of the Hope Village rehabilitation centres, the incidence of Urfi marriage is rising among street girls -- the focus of the organisation's work for the last four years "We had initially planned to use the rehabilitation system we had been applying to boys since 1989, but we were suddenly faced with a dilemma many of the girls were pregnant and needed different treatment." A shelter was established for "young mothers" inaugurated on 25 May, it had already accommodated them for a month. Hoda, one such residents, was only 15 when she gave birth to Ali five months ago; her father had forced her into a Urfi marriage with a rich old man from the Gulf. Once pregnant she was brought back to her father, again with no evidence of marriage, and he registered the child as his own. When she left the house, therefore, she could not take Ali with her -- her father having refused to let her have him "I have no official proof of anything. But let him have the child if he wants it," she smiled. "I'm not into this baby business anyway." For Nermeen, 20, another resident, Urfi marriage was her only way out of street life, which she had suffered since her stepmother threw her out of the house "I used to hang around Ramses Square; and that's where I met Ahmed." Many of her friends, married in the same way, were about to leave her...
"I was afraid," she said. "So I thought I'd do as they did." She was below the minimum legal age for marriage (16), and Ahmed did not possess an identity card; Urfi was the only option. Three months later she was pregnant, but Ahmed wouldn't hear of having a conventional wedding "He tore up our contract. A few days later while I was sleeping on Ramses Road, he came and took away my child. I haven't seen him since. He's two now. Some people say he died, but my heart tells me he's alive." Yet as if this was not enough, very shortly afterwards, Hoda had her second Urfi wedding "I wanted someone to protect me and Yehya promised he would." Having beaten her on their first day as husband and wife, however, Yehia continued to do so -- until, while three months pregnant, she fled back to the street. The baby soon died "It was cold and I had nowhere to go." To be grateful for a burial licence -- "I had no proof of marriage and could've made a debauchery case against me" -- was all she could do. Indeed in the absence of evidence of marriage, many such young women have been unable to obtain birth certificates for their children. And in the light of the fact that a paternity suit can take months and even years to be concluded, as Ibrahim puts it, "they remain nameless beings -- as they emerged out of thin air." They have neither rights nor privileges. As these women learn, the hard way, a life without a birth certificate is no fun. Zeinat came to Cairo from Luxor along with her mother following a divorce. Living on the street, the mother sought Urfi marriage to obtain shelter for herself; and so did Zeinat. When she was three months pregnant the husband tore up the paper and left -- never to be seen again. As a result Basel, Zeinat's son, remains officially nameless -- without a birth certificate -- and Zeinat has come to discover some of the consequent problems "When I tried to have him vaccinated at the age of nine months like every other baby, I was sent away. They said they couldn't be certain he was really nine months. They wouldn't take my word for it at all."
There are countless circumstances that lead to Urfi marriage. Ibrahim tells of a woman turning up to file a divorce suit -- whose contract turned out to be Urfi. To dodge the minimum age requirement, the maazoun (religious authority responsible for marriage and divorce) "had made it look so like an official contract only an expert could tell the difference". Many widows, besides, choose Urfi marriage in order not to lose pensions they receive. But aside from circumstances, it is proof of marriage that remains at the centre of the issue. On 29 January 2000, women were given the right to seek divorce by, among other ways, filing an authenticity-of- signature suit at a family court. As El-Shami points out, however, winning such a suit does not give the marriage official sanction -- far from it "It simply allows the woman to file a divorce or a paternity suit -- that's all." Proof-of-marriage suits are different altogether, as Ibrahim explains they can be based on the contract or any other evidence including letters or witnesses. What many fail to realise is that, according to Sharia, tearing up a Urfi contract does not amount to divorce. El-Hinnawi had told Vogue, "I figured that if things didn't work out, we would simply agree to destroy the contract, which is tantamount to a divorce." Besides the complete termination of any existing copies of the contact, Sharia requires the man to say the words, "I divorce you"; otherwise, on seeking another marriage later on, a woman could be accused of polyandry. Where a child enters the scenario, it is only given a first name until a paternity suit is concluded -- something all the more complicated by the fact that, according to the present laws, DNA tests remain optional it is up to the judge to decide if one is necessary; they are also expensive. El-Shami is calling for both making the test compulsory and postponing payment until the results are out and a verdict pronounced "If positive, the man pays; if negative, the woman does..."
According to the law, any woman can file a paternity suit, whether or not she is married. But if it turns out she is lying, El-Shami goes on, "the woman is subject to being fined or even a prison sentence". Many women rights organisations -- El-Shami's among them -- are seeking an answer to the Urfi dilemma. To eliminate them altogether, one would have to "allow some time for all present cases to be presented to court", but even then, people would in all probability continue to engage in the practise, the way they did before 2000, when women didn't even have the right to file a proof-of-marriage suit. More effective, perhaps, would be giving the female partner in an Urfi marriage all the rights of a conventionally married wife. Ola agrees with the latter "Men seek Urfi marriage as a way to dodge the responsibilities of a conventional marriage. If women have the same rights, men would think twice before doing it. But until then it will remain a backdoor for all men, a marriage of convenience -- no fighting, no problems. You can quit once you've had enough."
http//weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/775/eg93.htm
-
MMA arrangements are open for abuse. Its identical to whats known as a urfi marriage. MMA usually does not have strong family backing and financial backing and often can be abused. The Quran did acknowledge such arrangement but encouraged its elevation to a proper marriage by informing family and establishing dowry.
I know it can be abused dramatically but so can so many other things like the internet. What falls under just, reasonable, responsible and so on would have it's own dictates on how far someone goes with an MMA or what exactly is involved with an MMA.
I'm guessing that a believer would never sleep with their MMA unless they reasoned that it was good. In marriage there is legal protection and also a bigger commitment involved. But some may just want to have sex for pleasure and may want no commitments. When there is deception and irresponsiblity by one individual and this causes harm, then this can be punishable like other things such as a misuse of the internet to lure kids or women in.
I don't see restrictions from a Quranic perspective at the moment.