Defenition of marriage suggests sex before marriage permitted?!
-
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 -
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
-
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,
7030Except 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
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
4.33 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
-
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,
Who is this "male"? Musal-leen? As I mentioned in my post, this is a generic male, not gendered, meaning that it contains females too. Otherwise, almost the whole of the quraan is addresses to "males" and "females" have nothing to to do with it.
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,
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.
If this is where you concluded this
meaning he could increase that kitty.
Then this is a special case, and still does not mean they are sex slaves. And it's not the only "special case" in this verse.
MMA are particularly not to have sex with them. it's a sexless marriage , whether by at least one of them not being able to or not wnating/supposed to have sex. There are many people like that and they are not ignored by the quraan. And maybe God is asking him not to marry= to limit his intimate relations to his wives, or even to remarry/change his wives, but since MMA marriage is a sexless one, he could have as amny as he wanted. Otherwise, what's the point of forbidding him any more marriage, but allowing him as amny MMA as he wanted? -
Who is this "male"? Musal-leen? As I mentioned in my post, this is a generic male, not gendered, meaning that it contains females too. Otherwise, almost the whole of the quraan is addresses to "males" and "females" have nothing to to do with it.
If this is where you concluded this
Then this is a special case, and still does not mean they are sex slaves. And it's not the only "special case" in this verse.
MMA are particularly not to have sex with them. it's a sexless marriage , whether by at least one of them not being able to or not wnating/supposed to have sex. There are many people like that and they are not ignored by the quraan. And maybe God is asking him not to marry= to limit his intimate relations to his wives, or even to remarry/change his wives, but since MMA marriage is a sexless one, he could have as amny as he wanted. Otherwise, what's the point of forbidding him any more marriage, but allowing him as amny MMA as he wanted?Dear Samia
You saidbut since MMA marriage is a sexless one,
What is this "sexless marriage "? Never heard of it.
How come a marriage is sexless unless there is some really medical problem ?
What is the use of such a marriage ?
If you say financial support ,then it can be without marriage even.
If a man takes a lady in marriage and does not does not have sex with her ,do you think it is is justified with that lady. Will she commit Zina for her psychological demands ?
Regards -
Who is this "male"? Musal-leen? As I mentioned in my post, this is a generic male, not gendered, meaning that it contains females too. Otherwise, almost the whole of the quraan is addresses to "males" and "females" have nothing
When HE needed to address both , He clearly demonstrated it by starting with "Oh you believe!
MMA are particularly not to have sex with them. it's a sexless marriage , ?
How did you conclude the red part? where as i have clearly shown you the evidence from quran in the shape of 70-29.30 and there is a repetition of this advice in quran as well.
And maybe God is asking him not to marry= to limit his intimate relations to his wives, or even to remarry/change his wives, but since MMA marriage is a sexless one, he could have as amny as he wanted. Otherwise, what's the point of forbidding him any more marriage, but allowing him as amny MMA as he wanted?
The sexual contract with MMA is with least obligation , whereas the women who are taken in contract through Nikah have significant rights, and addons, like "Ajar", "inheritance" , "divorce", "maintenance" etc, which is quite burdensome. May be that is why he was stopped at a certain stage but MMa were excluded.
siki
-
Fahad
salam brother
sorry i had to butt-in,
Wsalaam bro.
You are welcome .
I guess you have a wrong understanding due to erroneous translation of the word Mohsinna by most of the translators , specially 24-4,
I am willing to re-consider my understanding if I can see some solid evidence against it. My understanding is based upon verse 4/25, not upon translations of a single word.
The Mohsinnats, or the mohsinna is ,NOT, a married women, but a label that Quran likes to call the women who are chaste, or in other words are not proven fahishas/zanias(every one is chaste unless proven otherwise)
I'd like to see evidence for that.
A clear proof against your understanding is 4-25, kindly go through that, it says , If you do not have the means to nikkah a Mohsinna from Mominats category , then you should marry a maiden mohsinna from Ma malakat category.
Bro, 'al-muhsinaat al-mominaat' are already from the 'milk-al-ayman', IMHO. Al-muhsinaat are only allowed if they are from the 'milk-al-ayman' category(4/24). But I am sorry I don't get how that disproves my understanding?
-
The only exception is 246
246 And those who accuse their spouses, but they have no witnesses except for themselves, then the testimony of one of them is to be equivalent to that of four witnesses if it is sworn by God that they are being truthful.
It still says that their testimony is EQUAL TO THAT OF 4 WITNESSES, which again implies that IN GENERAL ZINA IS PUBLIC SEX.
Zina is definitely public sex, 24-6 has no relevance with the issue, this is a peculiar case and if you note
no word like zina zani or zania is used in 24-6.It is an accusation for adultery and what is going to be proven in this case is a fahash act,
Brother, 24/6 itself doesn't mention the words zina, zaaniya or zaani but what is the context about? It is about zina. 24/4 has relevance with zina, but 24/6 does not? Why not?
Not zina, until or unless he/she is caught by 4 witnesses.
So 24/4 is about zina even though it does not mention the word "zina", "zaaniya" or "zaani". But 24/6 is not about zina because it does not mention "zina", "zaaniya" or "zaani" either. Bro, please help me understand this logic. Thanks.
-
Ma Malakat emnakum are rated along with your azwaj, you can have sex with them , the only difference being that you possess them for free, No wages/ajar/reward before enjoying them.
They are not for free. They are dependent upon you, so you have to take care of their needs.
-
Dear Samia
You said What is this "sexless marriage "? Never heard of it.
How come a marriage is sexless unless there is some really medical problem ?
What is the use of such a marriage ?
If you say financial support ,then it can be without marriage even.
If a man takes a lady in marriage and does not does not have sex with her ,do you think it is is justified with that lady. Will she commit Zina for her psychological demands ?
RegardsHow old are you, student?