Defenition of marriage suggests sex before marriage permitted?!

Samia

The one who posses them can have sexual relations with them , without paying ajar , whereas if any one can not afford to marry a free mohsina then it is being recommended that he may approach a believing maiden from ma malakat category with the permission of her possessor and he has to treat her as good as a free lady, and full fill all those requirements and treat her the way one would have treated a free women, as described in 4-24.

Her possessor became her family/ahl? How did he possess her? Why would her "possessor" give her up when he is having free sex and slavery? How can this "who is unable to marry the mohsanat" afford the price of a sex slave (definitely the possesor will have to either sell her or rent her) nope nope
Remember, maa malakat aymanukum are not only females!! So forget about these "sex slaves".

siki

Waalmuhsanatu mina alnnisa-iilla ma malakat aymanukum kitaba AllahiAAalaykum waohilla lakum ma waraa thalikuman tabtaghoo bi-amwalikum muhsineena ghayra musafiheenafama istamtaAAtum bihi minhunna faatoohunnaojoorahunna fareedatan wala junaha AAalaykumfeema taradaytum bihi min baAAdi alfareedatiinna Allaha kana AAaleeman hakeeman

Waman lam yastatiAA minkum tawlanan yankiha almuhsanati almu/minatifamin ma malakat aymanukum min fatayatikumualmu/minati waAllahu aAAlamu bi-eemanikumbaAAdukum min baAAdin fainkihoohunnabi-ithni ahlihinna waatoohunna ojoorahunna bialmaAAroofimuhsanatin ghayra masafihatin walamuttakhithati akhdanin fa-itha ohsinnafa-in atayna bifahishatin faAAalayhinna nisfu maAAala almuhsanati mina alAAathabi thalikaliman khashiya alAAanata minkum waan tasbiroo khayrunlakum waAllahu ghafoorun raheemun

kindly study the two verses in continuation and ponder over the arabic, not the translations.

siki

Samia

Salaam

Marriage is a contract. Cotract between two parties is on the basis of equality.
Then "ajr" must be both ways. Why only one way?.

You have a point, provided that duties are divided between the two, including child birth and rearing children.

Samia

kindly study the two verses in continuation and ponder over the arabic, not the translations.

siki

What do you wnat me to find in these verses after pondering over the Arabic? That they are
-females only?

sex slaves?
-have "owners"?
should not be paid?

siki

What do you wnat me to find in these verses after pondering over the Arabic? That they are
-females only?

sex slaves?
-have "owners"?
should not be paid?

I am afraid the answers to your questions are a YES, and unfortunately that is a hard truth, because this category existed when quran was revealed, and how do you think God would not address this important issue?

siki

Q_student

I am afraid the answers to your questions are a YES, and unfortunately that is a hard truth, because this category existed when quran was revealed, and how do you think God would not address this important issue?

siki

Dear Brother
Do you understand that with a single stroke of "Yes" where you have placed the status of women ?

Regards

siki

And do not forget,

70-29,30 And those who guard their private parts Except from their wives and from those whom their right hands possess;(ma malakat emnakum) such indeed, are not to blame;

siki

Samia

And do not forget,

70-29,30 And those who guard their private parts Except from their wives and from those whom their right hands possess;(ma malakat emnakum) such indeed, are not to blame;

siki

I do not balme you! The translations are strangely biased. I checked two different translations and found they have the same wrong translation you are posting

First no "wives" but "azwaaj", which goes both ways. The verse addresses the "musal-leen", which is a generic masculine, like almost all of the quraan, addressing mankind/both genders. "azwaaj" is best translated as "pair - literal" or "spouse" with no gender.
Second It's "azwajihim AW/ OR MMa (not and). This means you cannot have both zawj and MMA.

And those who guard their chastity,
7030

Except with their wives and the (captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (then) they are not to be blamed,

Fahad1

So according to your interpretation 1731-36 in context address only the married, thus only the married have children ? widowers, divorced, unmarried cannot have children therefore

And kill not your children for fear of poverty ? not applicable for singles.
Sure if you are single take kid?s food, clothes, school money spends it on whatever; it?s OK according to your interpretation.

And come not near to alzzina verily, it is a fahishah ? not applicable for singles.
Therefore, those not married can have unlimited sex with anyone soon as they reach puberty.

And do not kill anyone whose killing God has forbidden ? not applicable for singles.
Therefore, those not married can go postal anytime on a killing spree according to your interpretation.

And come not near to the orphan's property except to improve it ? not applicable for singles.
Thus if single go rob a few orphans, it's OK according to your interpretation.

And follow not that of which you have no knowledge ? not applicable for singles.
Sure follow whatever thoughts pop in your head if you are single ready to mingle.

243 Alzzanee (only the married) can marry a zaniyatan who is also married -- swap spouses anytime.

It is clear from this that you haven't grasped a thing about my interpretation.

Go back to my post about the definition of zina and tell me what you understand. And only the command about zina has anything to with marriage, not the rest of the commands.

244 those who accuse (chaste/honorable women) ? only married women are honorable.
Therefore, according to your interpretation (in context) single women cannot be chaste.

How are you using both meanings, chaste and married? Do you realize it doesn't make any sense?

425 And who is not able, from you wealth/capability that he marries (the chaste/honorable), the believing so from what your rights owned from your youths (girls) the believers?

Thus, according to you if you do not have enough money to lure a married believing woman away from her husband, get a malakat aymanukum..

These 'al-muhsinaat' are already from the "malakat aymanukum".

2433 And let those who find not the financial means for marriage keep themselves (chaste/honorable)
What, singles can also be (chaste/honorable)?

The verse does not mention "al-muhsinaat". Tch tch.

55

Today is permitted for you the goodness, and those who were given The Book's food is permitted for you, and your food is permitted for them, and the chaste from the believers, and the chaste from those who were given The Book from before you, if you gave them their fees (dowries), marrying not fornicating/adulterating, and not taking lovers, and who disbelieves with the faith, so his deed had failed, and he in the end from the losers.

Thus according to your interpretation only the married women from those given The Book above are permitted -- singles not applicable.

Does it say that "only" al-muhsinaat are allowed?

It means her reputation, honor, chastity, and dignity as a lady is being challenged.

How? What did I say az-zina is?

Very serious and those who continue to spread such lies should be dealt with mercilessly.

Oh?

Read Qur?an in context and cross-reference; there are no contradictions or fornication amongst singles.

I do. You on the other hand need to make sense of what you read and what you say, stop relying on translations, and read my post about az-zina. Here http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9598241.msg199786#msg199786

nimnimak_11

Peace truthseeker

Sorry, i missed it. I didn't know it was directed at me so i was waiting for more from you.
I had a good look at the verse. Previously, i though it only refered to financial transactions.

Just to make sure that 2282 also applies to marriage contracts, i have one question

Can a marriage contract have a FIXED time?

Now assuming that 2282 also refers to marriage contracts. That still hasn't changed much in my view as from 2282

"except if it is a trade to be done on the spot between you, then there is no sin upon you if you do not record it. And have witnesses if you trade/make an oath/covenant/contract...."

It can be understood that when you ask someone out (propose) it is on the spot hence no written marriage contract needed.

What you have proven is that witnesses are need. Which i now acknowledge IF marriage contracts apply to 2282 as well. Having witnesses just means not keeping the relationship secret as commonly when a couple are together in their conversations with other people, they talk about things such as how they first met and so on.

Now i conclude that 1) Ask someone out 2) Start the relationship 3) Let others know and as long as you cover ajr, then your classified as married yay

There is one question left for you to answer out of the three i asked
Written dowry? Where in the Quran? (Please not that i don't think 2282 is reasonable evidence for this)
Let me know what you think peace

nimnimak_11

Peace Samia

Thank you for redirecting.

Looking at various verses in the Quran, the word Ajr is also often translated as rewards. Why is it translated as a financial matter when it comes to marriage? Can it not be translated as rewards?

Even if we consider it to be not an ongoing thing, why is it translated as a finacial matter?

Truthseeker and others, what do you think?

peace

siki

I do not balme you! The translations are strangely biased. I checked two different translations and found they have the same wrong translation you are posting

First no "wives" but "azwaaj", which goes both ways. The verse addresses the "musal-leen", which is a generic masculine, like almost all of the quraan, addressing mankind/both genders. "azwaaj" is best translated as "pair - literal" or "spouse" with no gender.
Second It's "azwajihim AW/ OR MMa (not and). This means you cannot have both zawj and MMA.

And those who guard their chastity,
7030

Except with their wives and the (captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (then) they are not to be blamed,

I agree that azwaj is better translated as spouse or pair , but here the address is male, so logically the spouse here is a wife,

I totally disagree with your interpretation that it is either a wife or a MMA, kindly go through 33-50 you will find here that the prophet had both.

Not only that, in 33-52 he is being stopped from substituting/adding further wives No matter how pleased he was from some one's beauty, but again MMA stayed an exception, meaning he could increase that kitty.

33-50 O Prophet! surely We have made lawful to you your wives whom you have given their dowries, and those whom your right hand possesses(MMA) granted to you by GOD, and the daughters of your paternal uncles and the daughters of your paternal aunts, and the daughters of your maternal uncles and the daughters of your maternal aunts who fled with you; and a believing woman if she gave herself to the Prophet, if the Prophet desired to marry her -- specially for you, not for the (rest of) believers; We know what We have ordained for them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess in order that no blame may attach to you; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

33-52 It is not allowed to you to take women afterwards, nor that you should change them for other wives, though their beauty be pleasing to you, except what your right hand possesses(MMA) and Allah is Watchful over all things.

NOTE. I copy and paste translation for reference just because they can be easily copied and posted, so that majority members on the forum can make out what is being conveyed.

And I generally post a translation which i find closest to its literal Arabic, and rest assured i have done my bit regarding its original Arabic. I may not agree with the whole content of the translation.

Peace

siki

unknownuser

It is clear from this that you haven't grasped a thing about my interpretation.

Go back to my post about the definition of zina and tell me what you understand. And only the command about zina has anything to with marriage, not the rest of the commands.

How are you using both meanings, chaste and married? Do you realize it doesn't make any sense?

(chaste) -- Pure from unlawful sexual intercourse; virtuous; honorable, the opposite of adulteress harlot.

1928 O sister of Aaron, your father was not (a) man of evil, and your mother was not unchaste.

These 'al-muhsinaat' are already from the "malakat aymanukum".

What else does it say?

425

The verse does not mention "al-muhsinaat". Tch tch.

2433 And those who do not find marriage should refrain??

Refrain from what, refrain means what -- stay chaste/honorable?

Does it say that "only" al-muhsinaat are allowed?

Are non believing prostitutes permitted too?

55

Today is permitted for you the goodness, and those who were given The Book's food is permitted for you, and your food is permitted for them, and the chaste from the believers, and the chaste from those who were given The Book from before you, if you gave them their Mahr (reward), marrying not fornicating/adulterating, and not taking lovers, and who disbelieves with the faith, so his deed had failed, and he in the end from the losers.

How? What did I say az-zina is?

You asked a simple question

Quote from Fahad on May 09, 2009, 092052 PM
What will the "slander" mean for an unmarried woman?

To which I gave you a simple answer and depending on location sound advice.

Oh?

Yes people get shot for slandering chaste women -- married or single.

I do. You on the other hand need to make sense of what you read and what you say, stop relying on translations, and read my post about az-zina. Here http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9598241.msg199786#msg199786

What you conjectured on zina and marriage contradicts; suggest take my advice on slandering.

Peace

Tlepsh

16.71 And God has preferred some of you over others in provision. Those who have been preferred will not relinquish their provision to MMA, so they may become equal in it. Are they denying the favour of God?

30.28 He gives you an example from your own society are there any from among MMA that are partners to you in what provisions We have given you that you become equal therein? Are you as mindful of them as you are mindful of yourselves? It is such that We clarify the revelations for a people who have sense.

From verses 16.71 and 30.28 what I understand is any ?non muhsan? (man or women) marries MMA (man or woman) shall give half of his/her provision to him/her and become equal in it.

siki

Fahad

salam

Brother, IMO your understanding of the issue is erroneous.

siki

siki

16.71 And God has preferred some of you over others in provision. Those who have been preferred will not relinquish their provision to MMA, so they may become equal in it. Are they denying the favour of God?

30.28 He gives you an example from your own society are there any from among MMA that are partners to you in what provisions We have given you that you become equal therein? Are you as mindful of them as you are mindful of yourselves? It is such that We clarify the revelations for a people who have sense.

From verses 16.71 and 30.28 what I understand is any ?non muhsan? (man or women) marries MMA (man or woman) shall give half of his/her provision to him/her and become equal in it.

If you analyse the context, It is being conveyed by sighting the example of MMA, that you never make them equal to yourself or make them partners in the blessings which God bestows upon you, Then how do you think that God who is Almighty ,and to whom every thing belongs, would create partners for himself.

siki

Tlepsh

If you analyse the context, It is being conveyed by sighting the example of MMA, that you never make them equal to yourself or make them partners in the blessings which God bestows upon you, Then how do you think that God who is Almighty ,and to whom every thing belongs, would create partners for himself.

siki

16.71 And God has preferred some of you over others in provision. Those who have been preferred will not relinquish their provision to MMA, so they may become equal in it. Are they denying the favour of God?

Verse 16.71 clearly states that any one who does not make them equal is denying the favour of God.

siki

16.71 And God has preferred some of you over others in provision. Those who have been preferred will not relinquish their provision to MMA, so they may become equal in it. Are they denying the favour of God?

Verse 16.71 clearly states that any one who does not make them equal is denying the favour of God.

If the humans do not give up power to that extent, why do they expect God to do that and create partners for himself ?

16-71 GOD has provided for some of you more than others. Those who are given plenty would never give their properties to their subordinates to the extent of making them partners. Would they give up GOD's blessings?

16-72 And GOD made for you spouses from among yourselves, and produced for you from your spouses children and grandchildren, and provided you with good provisions. Should they believe in falsehood, and turn unappreciative of GOD's blessings?

16-73 Yet, they worship beside GOD what possesses no provisions for them in the heavens, nor on earth, nor can provide them with anything.

siki

Tlepsh

4.33 And for each (men and women) We have made inheritors for what was left behind by the parents and the relatives, and MMA. So you shall give them (the inheritors) their portion. God is witness over all things.

Does this verse tells us that we inherit from MMA?

siki

4.33 And for each (men and women) We have made inheritors for what was left behind by the parents and the relatives, and MMA. So you shall give them (the inheritors) their portion. God is witness over all things.

Does this verse tells us that we inherit from MMA?

4-43 uses "Aqdatu emnakum" which is not what Ma Makakat emnakum are. It probably conveys a different meaning.

siki