Does 24:3 indeed forbid us to marry fornicators!!!?????
-
You are bonded to a person when you get married, what he or she has done in the past is obsolete.
Unfortunately HIV does not become obsolete when someone gets married
Do you REALLY believe that a "person's past is obsolete"? I see people saying this time and time again, yet each and every time the whole thing ends in tears as the party at fault cheats yet again. It has never worked this way in human history, it will not work that way on judgement day so why do you think it will work for you as if you are some kind of golden exception? Everybody's past deeds is what makes themselves the being they are today, which is why over and over again, God says 'except those who repent and refrain from any further evil'.
If anyone wishes to marry an idolater/adulterer then do so, that is your individual will. But under no circumstances please try to distort the very plain, very obvious warning that God gives us.
Also refer to the beginning verses of ch23. If you think there is a distinction between 'adultery' and 'fornication' quranically then present your evidence. Otherwise remain aware of 236, 237.
-
The past is past when one repents and amends, but if one does not give any weight to what is past in the sense that there is nothing wrong with it, that does not forebode well. And I do not mean that one should throw ashes on one's head or go into a convent, but simply acknowledge that the things done were out of ignorance or recklessness or whatever, but if the person continues to think that there is nothing wrong with it, then the past is indeed not past.
Salaam
-
Unfortunately HIV does not become obsolete when someone gets married
Do you REALLY believe that a "person's past is obsolete"? I see people saying this time and time again, yet each and every time the whole thing ends in tears as the party at fault cheats yet again. It has never worked this way in human history, it will not work that way on judgement day so why do you think it will work for you as if you are some kind of golden exception? Everybody's past deeds is what makes themselves the being they are today, which is why over and over again, God says 'except those who repent and refrain from any further evil'.
Sorry IAMOP, not quite grasping what you are saying as in the first part it seems you condemn someone for their past even if they have changed - yes change IS possible - and in the last part GOD is clearly saying those who repent and refrain from the bad stuff, HE accepts.
Can you clarify please?
Quote by huruf
The past is past when one repents and amends, but if one does not give any weight to what is past in the sense that there is nothing wrong with it, that does not forebode well. And I do not mean that one should throw ashes on one's head or go into a convent, but simply acknowledge that the things done were out of ignorance or recklessness or whatever, but if the person continues to think that there is nothing wrong with it, then the past is indeed not past.
Agree, the person needs to see what was done as wrong or there is no repentance, no repentance = no forgiveness.
A person may have committed all sorts in the past and seen the error of their ways and repented and asked forgiveness. If they continue to do whatever it was after that then they have not sincerely repented but if they go on to lead a good clean life after this then - according to Quran - the God forgives, so should man (or woman) that person meets afterwards.
peace
-
I don't care about those who cheated on me as thats ADULTERY. I was referring to the other meaning of Zina which is Fornication which I don't see why we would be forbidden to go with considering they cheated on no one and only had sex before marriage there.
Here in the west, adultery isn't THAT common so I don't worry about that. It's Fornication that I worry about which is the other meaning of Zina and thus why I find it illogical as to why we can't go with them.
I would think 243 still is a continuation of 242 possibly meaning that once 4 have seen them in the act of Zina and therefore lashed, this would be the next step, but not sure and thus I want clearance and such.
Peace A.W.
I disagree...adultery is VERY common in the U.S. How many times have you seen people legally seperated moving on to relationships with new people. They are still married...celebrities do it all of the time.
Unfortunately, no one pushes the issue of it so most people treat it like it is nothing, but legal seperation still means one is "married" and therfore, committing adultery.
As for your understanding of fornication in this situation, I find it interesting, and I live in the West also, so I know what you mean about fornication. It is very acceptable here, people call it "sampling the milk before you buy the cow," to which I say "Who the heck are you calling a cow??"
Still waiting to hear from Shirley...
-Amina
-
Salam
If I may interpret freely.....
As a muslim you are not allowed to marry a person who believes in multiple partners or Gods. If you meet a man/woman whom you want to marry and he/she says "after we are married I will continue to be with other people" you are not allowed to marry them. If they say "after we are married I will continue to worship multiple Gods" you are not allowed to marry them.
I do not see anywhere in the verse where it is the history of the person that decides if they are marriage material, it does however suggest it is in the future.You are bonded to a person when you get married, what he or she has done in the past is obsolete.
Well as I stated I have don't plan to go with the mushirk so the multiple gods part doesn't apply. Obviously I also don't want them to be with someone while with me.
Sigh... as I said its about people who FORNICATED AKA had sex before marriage as in what is rather common in the west. So please stick by that topic here which fornication is another meaning of Zina.
Course it would make it rather hard to for me and others as fornication is really popular in the west and thus I am thinking that maybe 243 only applies to those who received the punishment in 242, but not sure and want clarification.
-
God says 'except those who repent and refrain from any further evil'.
A bit off topic but please don't miswrite a quote from the Quran as the Quran has simply said "except those who repent and do righteous deeds".
Peace A.W.
I disagree...adultery is VERY common in the U.S. How many times have you seen people legally seperated moving on to relationships with new people. They are still married...celebrities do it all of the time.
Unfortunately, no one pushes the issue of it so most people treat it like it is nothing, but legal seperation still means one is "married" and therfore, committing adultery.
As for your understanding of fornication in this situation, I find it interesting, and I live in the West also, so I know what you mean about fornication. It is very acceptable here, people call it "sampling the milk before you buy the cow," to which I say "Who the heck are you calling a cow??"
Still waiting to hear from Shirley...
-Amina
Well still though adultry isn't THAT common to be an issue of worry on if our partner has done it before.
Course fornication is still an issue which is the other meaning of Zina an so I wanna know what 243 means. Is that after the punishment 242 has happened or in general anyone who has done it before cause then it would be rather very hard for us.
-
Unfortunately HIV does not become obsolete when someone gets married
Do you REALLY believe that a "person's past is obsolete"? I see people saying this time and time again, yet each and every time the whole thing ends in tears as the party at fault cheats yet again. It has never worked this way in human history, it will not work that way on judgement day so why do you think it will work for you as if you are some kind of golden exception? Everybody's past deeds is what makes themselves the being they are today, which is why over and over again, God says 'except those who repent and refrain from any further evil'.
If anyone wishes to marry an idolater/adulterer then do so, that is your individual will. But under no circumstances please try to distort the very plain, very obvious warning that God gives us.
Also refer to the beginning verses of ch23. If you think there is a distinction between 'adultery' and 'fornication' quranically then present your evidence. Otherwise remain aware of 236, 237.
Salam IAMOP
HIV is a disease, what does that have to do with the way a person thinks/acts?
You ask me if a persons past is obsolete and I answer you by saying absolutely YES.....If....I choose to love and marry a person I accept all the "bad" things they have done in the past. If the person in question continues to cheat I am the only one to blame for trusting such a person. If I choose to trust a thief with my money I must accept he has put his criminal career behind him. If he steals my money I am to blame for trusting him. If I put my hand in a tigers mouth I am to blame if I lose it..........Now I am a bitter man that does not trust anyone so I wouldnt trust a woman who has a history of cheating further than I can throw her, but if I would choose to trust her I must forgive and forget her past. I cannot walk around with doubt in my heart, could you?
And surprise surprise, there are people out there who actually stay true to eachother. Some do it out of love, some out of respect, and some out of their belief in Allah. One day you might notice them......I think the reason you see a lot of cheating does not necessarily mean that it is in "our nature" to cheat. I think it has more to do with people committing themselves to marriage before they are mature enough to live in monogamy.
And yes there is a unbelievable difference between adultery and fornication, adultery is punishable but fornication is not. But looking into the Quran will not help you find the answer, first you must find out what the real difference is. I am happy to share my view but in a different thread.
If anyone wishes to marry an idolater/adulterer then do so, that is your individual will. But under no circumstances please try to distort the very plain, very obvious warning that God gives us.
Please explain this one more time, you mean Allah is warning us that a cheater will always be a cheater and an polytheist will alwyas be an polytheist?
-
Sigh... as I said its about people who FORNICATED AKA had sex before marriage as in what is rather common in the west. So please stick by that topic here which fornication is another meaning of Zina.
Salam brother
Sorry, I missed the subject heading, now I see it says "fornicators"..........so the answer is therefore no, it is not forbidden to marry a fornicator as per your definition of what fornication means.
I havent read all your posts, but it seems you are implying that the fornication being practiced in the West can be directly translated into the Arabic "zina". This is a misjudgement because zina encompasses many meanings whilst fornication means only one thing, and that is "couple not legally bound by marriage involved in a sexual relation". What you are describing as what is going on in the West is not fornication, it is promiscuity.
The popular definition of zina is unlawful sex. So what unlawful sex is happening in the West? What are you basing what is unlawful and what is not? The truth is there is no defintion of zina that would be viable in every culture in every corner of the world. By not giving us the definition Allah has shown us that we as different tribes and nations must all by ourselves decide what boundaries we need in order for our society to function. We do however have a upper limit, a clear warning that if we let our sexual nature take command Allah will punish us (story of Lot).
Taking this into consideration 243 is not directed towards the fornicator, it is directed towards the one who has unlawful sex (and polytheism). The definition of zina is what society has chosen it to be. For example in my society it means adultery, pedophilia, necrophilia, incest, bestiality and until not long ago, homosexuality.
Of course there is also the personal definition of zina. Just because society says a fornicator is a-ok does not mean you must accept marrying a fornicator eventhough you dont want to. You have your own definition, you must follow what you believe is right. As long as you do not impose your definition on someone else you have the freedom to think what you want. -
Salam brother
Sorry, I missed the subject heading, now I see it says "fornicators"..........so the answer is therefore no, it is not forbidden to marry a fornicator as per your definition of what fornication means.
I havent read all your posts, but it seems you are implying that the fornication being practiced in the West can be directly translated into the Arabic "zina". This is a misjudgement because zina encompasses many meanings whilst fornication means only one thing, and that is "couple not legally bound by marriage involved in a sexual relation". What you are describing as what is going on in the West is not fornication, it is promiscuity.
The popular definition of zina is unlawful sex. So what unlawful sex is happening in the West? What are you basing what is unlawful and what is not? The truth is there is no defintion of zina that would be viable in every culture in every corner of the world. By not giving us the definition Allah has shown us that we as different tribes and nations must all by ourselves decide what boundaries we need in order for our society to function. We do however have a upper limit, a clear warning that if we let our sexual nature take command Allah will punish us (story of Lot).
Taking this into consideration 243 is not directed towards the fornicator, it is directed towards the one who has unlawful sex (and polytheism). The definition of zina is what society has chosen it to be. For example in my society it means adultery, pedophilia, necrophilia, incest, bestiality and until not long ago, homosexuality.
Of course there is also the personal definition of zina. Just because society says a fornicator is a-ok does not mean you must accept marrying a fornicator eventhough you dont want to. You have your own definition, you must follow what you believe is right. As long as you do not impose your definition on someone else you have the freedom to think what you want.Problem is that Quranically we are to only have sex with the one we have married thus anything further is unlawful sex and thus what Zina is usually defined as. Fornication is sex before marriage and that is what happens commonly in the west.
However 243 I want to know as a result is if we indeed can't go with one who has done zina or not (which would be rather hard for someone in the west as most do fornicate) or if thats only a continuation of 242s definition. However I have seen some people say 243 is only talking about adultery which I have not seen too much evidence to explain why.
Regardless I am still rather confused on this issue.
-
What is marriage? Many couples in the west that technically would be considered as fornication are de facto marriages. Many couples live together and function as married couples, so they are married couples. They are not hiding, they have entered a commitment.
Another thing, like emil says is promiscuity, but I think it is a gross error to bundle everything in a big bag with the label zina. People who knowingly live together and share life and even have children, are married couples. Who is being deceived? The lack of a certain paper? People married before there was any paper in the world. Marriage has not been invented with civil registries and courts. The formulas administering it may have evolved and complicated, but the fact is still the same.
Salaam
-
Can you clarify please?
Yes, the one exception to that rule is when they repent and refrain from committing such a deed ever again. That's the definition of repentance after all. However if they do not repent then they have exalted their desire to the level of ilah over themselves. So you see them being compared with polytheists by God. Of a group of people, some will repent and mend. The rest will never repent and they will blindly wander on. In that case alone a cheater is always a cheater, a polytheist is always a polytheist. These ones are forbidden to marry for believers.
Aryan Warrior Please check your quran; the verse cited is 245. There is no miswrite. Yet still, paraphrasing 'repent and do good' still perfectly translates to 'repent and not do evil'.
Regardless, the command is to refrain from union with any person who holds the status of 'zani' whether or not they have been punished for it. Just like if you know someone has murdered someone else, you avoid them too regardless of judicial punishment. People do falsely accuse others however which is a separate case, and you would be commanded to investigate carefully as per 496. The four witness requirement is for certitude of justice but you must be aware
- Say the things that my Lord hath indeed forbidden are shameful deeds, whether open or secret; sins and trespasses against truth or reason; (cut)
Then to follow
- Bad women are for bad men and bad men are for bad women. Good women are for good men and good men are for good women
So I hope that is a clear self-evident proof that it does not matter whether they have been punished, but rather whether they actually DID the act or not.
Emil The evil is in forgiving someone who God the most wise, forgiving and merciful himself did not forgive (604).
And the soul (nafs) and Him Who made it perfect,
Then He inspired it to understand what is right and wrong for it;
He will indeed be successful who purifies it,
And he will indeed fail who corrupts it.Anyone who is not actively purifying their 'nafs' is certainly stagnating or moving towards evil because
Nor do I absolve my own self (of blame) the (human) soul is certainly prone to evil, (cut)
Peace
-
What is marriage? Many couples in the west that technically would be considered as fornication are de facto marriages. Many couples live together and function as married couples, so they are married couples. They are not hiding, they have entered a commitment.
Another thing, like emil says is promiscuity, but I think it is a gross error to bundle everything in a big bag with the label zina. People who knowingly live together and share life and even have children, are married couples. Who is being deceived? The lack of a certain paper? People married before there was any paper in the world. Marriage has not been invented with civil registries and courts. The formulas administering it may have evolved and complicated, but the fact is still the same.
Salaam
Well i'm not talking about those living together rather boyfriend-girlfriend couples who won't be living to each other but will visit each other and have sex from time to time with maybe a marriage coming in the future if things work out perfectly.
Also isn't marriage defined in Quranically with the giving of a dowry?
Aryan Warrior Please check your quran; the verse cited is 245. There is no miswrite. Yet still, paraphrasing 'repent and do good' still perfectly translates to 'repent and not do evil'.
Here is 245
"Except those who repent after this and do good, then God is Forgiving, Merciful." (245)
There is a difference there as doing good means good deeds rather then nothing and refraining. Anyways please don't start something here as I don't feel like arguing over this and going off topic.
Regardless, the command is to refrain from union with any person who holds the status of 'zani' whether or not they have been punished for it. Just like if you know someone has murdered someone else, you avoid them too regardless of judicial punishment. People do falsely accuse others however which is a separate case, and you would be commanded to investigate carefully as per 496. The four witness requirement is for certitude of justice but you must be aware
- Say the things that my Lord hath indeed forbidden are shameful deeds, whether open or secret; sins and trespasses against truth or reason; (cut)
Then to follow
- Bad women are for bad men and bad men are for bad women. Good women are for good men and good men are for good women
So I hope that is a clear self-evident proof that it does not matter whether they have been punished, but rather whether they actually DID the act or not.
The command has problems as the west as this will more or less prevent me from marriage then considering the common person will have had sex before marriage and God has said he is not burdening us so I can't see how this would work really. Even if 4 witnesses thing is needed to get the title of Zania or Zani, the problem is that they simply say that they've had sex before marriage.
2426 sounds more of a recommendation then a direct order and rather is stating the obvious that bad people like the mushirks would go with other mushirks while a believer would go with someone who isn't.
Also I wouldn't avoid someone who is a murderer as they may have given it up or I may simply dealing casually with them but thats just me there.
Regardless, I would still think that it would be part of the punishment rather Zani and Zania might be titles for those who did receive the punished as 243 follows 242 meaning 243 is simply continuing it as a punishment which for the era of when people wouldn't reveal themselves as fornicators it would be punishment for them as everyone would know it and thus forbidden for them.
Still rather unsure. Anyone else wanna do an input?
-
Salam
I'm sorry but I COMPLETELY disagree with you. Here Shirk and Zina are listed as two separate things in that very verse and never said a Zani or Zania are Mushirks, and rather listed them and two separate people. As well as in many parts of the Quran Shirk and Zina aren't listed as being the same and so sinning doesn't equal to shirk and this has been disputed over and over and over again on this board, so I don't want another discussion of it if you want to argue as i've already done it and seen it done enough on this board.
For those who actually know a sin is not shirk, I would like to hear from them please and thank you.
yes you are right brother. I am once again fell back in old Wahabi thinking . But I would have also figured in polite words ... we are here for learn in a good manner and sorry, if i didn't read all the board yet....
Zina is not shirk, but in the eyes of God a great sin, because He compares it with shirk, otherwise He would not mention it, right?
Salam -
Problem is that Quranically we are to only have sex with the one we have married thus anything further is unlawful sex and thus what Zina is usually defined as. Fornication is sex before marriage and that is what happens commonly in the west.
However 243 I want to know as a result is if we indeed can't go with one who has done zina or not (which would be rather hard for someone in the west as most do fornicate) or if thats only a continuation of 242s definition. However I have seen some people say 243 is only talking about adultery which I have not seen too much evidence to explain why.
Regardless I am still rather confused on this issue.
Salam brother
Just want to clarify that I am not arguing against you in any way, so forgive me if my words happen to come across in such a way.
If fornication means sex outside marriage the way you describe it would make the entire non-muslim world fornicators. Because if the act of marriage is what making sex legit then the marriage must be according to islam. All other religious and court marriages are considered null since they are not according to Allah's last guidance. There is no room for exceptions here, either a marriage is recognised or not. If one type of non-islamic marriage is recognised then all types of marriages must be recognised. We cannot pick and choose which one is ok and which is not, that is without being discriminative of course.
In other words, the majority of people in this world are fornicators, not only in the west but the east, north and south as well.......is this how "zani" should be interpreted? I think not.....A "fornicator" can be the most loyal person in the world, just because someone is not married by a body recognised by You does not mean they are not following monogamy and loyalty. So it is not the right kind of marriage certificate that governs what a zani is, but what is in the heart. If there is love and loyalty and monogamy it is recognised by Allah, therefore it should be recognised by us.You are also forgetting that in numerous places in the Quran Allah tells us that we can repent and He will forgive. The way you are interpreting 243 implies that we should not forgive. Once a cheater always a cheater, once a slut always a slut. ........this means that all the non-virgin converts to islam will never be allowed to marry....... because their non-islam marriage is not recognised as a legal marriage, therefore they are fornicators, and fornicators are not allowed to marry muslims.......so how does this work? It doesnt work that well IMO.....243 is talking about the future, not the past.....that makes more sense
Zani/Zina means illegal sex, what is it about fornication that makes it illegal? I think you are confusing fornication with casual sex. That is sex without any committment towards your partner. You have no obligation to stay monogamous, no financial committment and worse of all, you have no parental committment towards a possible offspring.
We should not marry those who will not be loyal, who will not committ to the relationship or those who will not recognise one God. If a person will not committ to one God, to you and to monogamy you cannot marry him/her (243).
-
You are forbidden to marry them until they repent and totally change their ways and thus they leave behind the status of 'zani'.
If a person has cheated on their partners, do you think that those guys are going to be good partners for YOU? Do you think they have demonstrated that they even give two shits about God? Do you think they are going to invite you to anything but the fire? You're better off sticking it in a hornet's nest.
rotfl
-
I don't care about those who cheated on me as thats ADULTERY. I was referring to the other meaning of Zina which is Fornication which I don't see why we would be forbidden to go with considering they cheated on no one and only had sex before marriage there.
Here in the west, adultery isn't THAT common so I don't worry about that. It's Fornication that I worry about which is the other meaning of Zina and thus why I find it illogical as to why we can't go with them.
I would think 243 still is a continuation of 242 possibly meaning that once 4 have seen them in the act of Zina and therefore lashed, this would be the next step, but not sure and thus I want clearance and such.
Consider this also
According to corpus, these are all the occurrences of zani
http//corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=zny#(2421).I think this implies that the Quran has only one meaning in mind when using zay-nun-ya and that this meaning is in relation to sexual activity. Mounting upon a thing (a meaning from the root of the word) and sex outside of marriage are both indicative of sexual activity. Which to choose?
This must be determined via implications found in the Quran. Now I will number my points
-
There is only one punishment given for zina. This logically must imply that either
a) Only one sort of sexual activity is prohibited (since there is only one punishment outlined for zina) OR
b) More than one sort of sexual activity, that are all of equal moral wrongness, are prohibited -
Zina means impermissible sexual activity (illegal mounting) (as suggested by others). This is implied by the following found in lane
He committed fornication or adultery; (El-Mun?wee, Er-R?ghib, TA with her (MA but accord. to El-Mun?wee, in the proper language of the Arabs, signifies the mounting upon a thing; and in the language of the law it signifies the commission of the act first mentioned above
Primarily based on 1 and secondarily based on 2 my conclusion
Zina = adultery only provided that no other illegal sexual activity with equal moral wrongness can be found in the Quran.If your after marriage, make sure it's for the right reasons and don't turn away from a potential marriage partner for the wrong reasons.
Also take 424-25 into account.
IMO make sure that they (potential marriage partner) are not the sort to take secret lovers or of the sort to commit adultery or lewdness. AND most importantly, marry them for security or for staring a family...just don't marry them for the sake of sex.
Peace and God bless
-
-
What is marriage? Many couples in the west that technically would be considered as fornication are de facto marriages. Many couples live together and function as married couples, so they are married couples. They are not hiding, they have entered a commitment.
Another thing, like emil says is promiscuity, but I think it is a gross error to bundle everything in a big bag with the label zina. People who knowingly live together and share life and even have children, are married couples. Who is being deceived? The lack of a certain paper? People married before there was any paper in the world. Marriage has not been invented with civil registries and courts. The formulas administering it may have evolved and complicated, but the fact is still the same.
Salaam
Peace,
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THIS! A piece of paper does not make one married...the commitment before Allah is what makes one married!!!
-Amina
-
Zani/Zina means illegal sex, what is it about fornication that makes it illegal? I think you are confusing fornication with casual sex. That is sex without any committment towards your partner. You have no obligation to stay monogamous, no financial committment and worse of all, you have no parental committment towards a possible offspring.
We should not marry those who will not be loyal, who will not committ to the relationship or those who will not recognise one God. If a person will not committ to one God, to you and to monogamy you cannot marry him/her (243).
-
Zani/Zina means illegal sex, what is it about fornication that makes it illegal? I think you are confusing fornication with casual sex. That is sex without any committment towards your partner. You have no obligation to stay monogamous, no financial committment and worse of all, you have no parental committment towards a possible offspring.
We should not marry those who will not be loyal, who will not committ to the relationship or those who will not recognise one God. If a person will not committ to one God, to you and to monogamy you cannot marry him/her (243).
bravo]
I think you summed it up with that statement... )
-
Yeah add a third cosign to that...
Sometimes the simplest of phrases transfer 100% of the information.
People should be aware of the pretend committment that is rife today. Couple meet, "I wuv u for eva and eva". 2 years later, they break up as if nothing happened. Next relationship "our love is FOREVER! Nothing can come between us <3"... Relationship lasts one year. Both parties knew in the first place that they really didn't care but the facade of committment and the faux heartbreak (real pain of course) when it all ends is so inevitable. It's like watching someone get run over by a steamroller in the desert, you can see it coming a mile off and it happens again and again and again. Each time both parties will play confused but do they not know in the deepest depths of their hearts what they are doing?
And this is what I am trying to get at; this is why I'd still say 'fornicators' means 'sex w/o marriage' in addition to adultery. This is absolutely pandemic in the western world. The overwhelming majority of adolescents growing up now will have around 4-10 long term sexual relationships by the age of 25 along with a string of one-night stands. I am not sure what the precise statistics are. The most fundamentally important verse regarding this
424 (...) lawful for you are (all women) besides those (already married), provided that you seek them with your property, taking them in marriage not committing fornication/lewdness/indecency/lustfulness (musfina).
Now all of the kind of relationships I am talking about have two things in common there is no seeking with property; thus the inevitable dissolution of the relationship is only an emotional loss and does not hit them financially. The promiscuous mind only really cares about the finances! Likewise we might wish to investigate what 'fahisha' entails.
I think clearly from this alone, those who are promiscuous are explicitly forbidden. Fundamentally the nikah committment is explicitly a financial committment to begin with; if it does not involve this then the act is assuredly zina or if not that then fahisha at least. The 'committment before Allah' is indeed one that requires paper. Or plastic, your choice really. Cha-ching either way. Not only that but the command is on the male to transfer wealth to the female and not the other way round. Isn't it ironic that a lot of western countries have this transfer of wealth take place but funnily enough only when it's time to part ways in the divorce court. This is what happens when a society's individuals claim lordship over themselves in preference to God the Supreme.