Defenition of marriage suggests sex before marriage permitted?!
-
No, accusation is not of zina, but of committing fornication, which when proven , becomes zina. And if not proven (less than 4 witnesses) would remain an accusation, and that is precisely being discouraged with dire consequences of 80 lashes.
I cannot agree, you have shown me no evidence for that.
I would agree with you here, there is no direct verse stating so, We have deduced this by interpolating different verses on the subject,
Which verses?
and this deduction is not 100% but is most likely, we do need to work and fill up this gap.
But you have not shown me a single verse that even indicates that zina is public sex. How then can your deduction be any more than 0% correct?
But so far, any other explanation, specially yours, is no where close, and till the time we come up with such deductions, which improve upon the %tage , I would stick with the Most likely scenario.
But have you refuted my explanation or cited any evidence against it? Why is my understanding erroneous? Where does it contradict the Quran? What is the evidence for your deduction being the most likely scenario? You said 4/25 disproves my understanding, but you haven't shown me how.
-
Again in 24-6 ,the issue can not be categorised as zina due to absence 4 witnesses, but as the matter is extremely important/sensitive for the witnessing spouse, as such he can not keep his mouth shut and go on living, just because he can't produce 4 witnesses , and if he bursts out with it, 80 lashes are waiting for him, so to avoid false accusation charge , a special procedure has been formulated.
Bro, the Quran does not tell us this reason.
I agree, but the Quran does not stop us to contemplate the divine wisdom in its commandments.
The Quran discourages zann/conjecture/guesswork. Therefore it should not be put forward as evidence.
For example...
If we have come up with a number of (extra-Quranic)reasons then...
a. maybe the reason is only one of them,
b. maybe some of them,
c. maybe all of them,
d. or maybe none of them, maybe the reason is something else.We can never know for sure. We can only guess/conjecture about it.
-
I have been trying for a long time to convey this to all my sisters on this forum,
What you so often forget is that God has honored the woman by giving her value in relation to God not in relation to men. But as western feminism erases God from the scene, there are no standard left but men. As a result the western feminist is forced to find her value in relation to a man. And in so doing you have accepted a faulty assumption. You have accepted that man is the standard, and thus a woman can never be a full human being until she becomes just like a man.
Only a woman can be a mother. And God has given special privilege to a mother. So why is that not unfair? And yet even when God honors you with something uniquely feminine, you are too busy trying to find your worth in reference to men, to value it-or even notice, and have accepted men as the standard; so anything uniquely feminine is, by definition, inferior, being sensitive is an insult, becoming a mother-a degradation.
In fact, in your effort to follow men, you, as women, never even stopped to examine the possibility that what you have is better for you. In some cases you even gave up what was higher, only to be like men.
Given your privilege as a woman, you only degrade yourself by trying to be something you are not. As women, you will never reach true liberation until you stop trying to mimic men, and value the beauty in your own God-given distinctiveness.
peace
siki
That's very well said.
Both men and women should find their karam/worth/value/honour in their relation to God(49/13), as He is al-akram/the most valuable/honorable(96/3).
-
Samia peace
what "happiness" that's exclusive to the partner? Aren't you also happy? Is she asked to pay you ajr? No, but nevertheless you are automatically "paid ajr"
I think your right. It's not the husband's exclusive duty to make his wife happy. But what do you mean by you are automatically paid ajr? Also in general, why is it that the husband has to give ajr to the wife and not the other way round. In terms of arabic, is it 100% certain that ajr is only the male's duty? Could it not be the duty of the person who is providing?
Why do you put "human are capable of making others happy" en par with "God rewards happiness"? Who says people are capable of making others happy? You make yourself happy. My children make me happy, but they do not do any specific thing other than being my children. The go away and I feel sad. Are they responsible for this "unhappiness"? God tells us how to be happy, not how to make others happy
I did not mean to put it en par with God's ajr. Though i think we are responsible in making ourselves happy, there are many scenarios i can think of in which one person can make another happy.
For example Person Z's heavy debt is the cause of their unhappiness. Person X pays this debt off. Technically, the reason Z is happy is because his debt has been removed. The cause of this was X. Thus X gave cause for Z to be happy. You can almost say that X made Z happy.
What do you think? Do you find it ethical, logical or in line with the spirit of the qur'aan? What about non orphaned girls? It sounds from this translation that it's OK to cheat them of their dowries!
The funny thing is that the same word "yataamaa" is used twice, and linguistically it's a masculine plural. It's used for males only or for a mixed group of both genders. There's another plural for females, which is "yateemaat". Why a native speaker would twist the translation in this way must be out of preconception. He is definitely not thinking. Secondly, where did he get "girls" in "orphaned girls" from? The phrase is "yataamaa al-nisaa'". In Arabic the adjective follows the noun, except in cases which this is not one of them. If the translator translates "yataamaa" as orphaned boys (there's nothing to show that they are specifically boys only, as we can use this plural with mixed gender too) then he should have expected to have "yateemaat" instead of "orphaned girls",.
In short, this translation is logically and linguistically wrong.I was unsure of what was classified as an orphan in the Quran. I was just considering the possibility that this verse talks of those who have lost both their parents and have prescribed rights from this loss (what the parents have legally left them). Not dowry or Ajr. I was thinking that perhaps non orphaned girls have not got any prescribed rights as their parents are alive. Thus no will has been prescribed to them unlike orphans.
This is neither ajr, nor is it between "men" and "women". And definitely not couples. What's the relation between these "men" and "women"? Does the verse tell you that they are married to each other?
What do you mean by "nor is it between men and women"?
There is no relation given. Would this then not mean that overall, the men are to support the women? Why not the women support the men. Is this strictly a finance issue hence the part "and for what they spend of their money"?Then when do you intend to make them happy? If you are not yet intimate with them, how do you know what makes them happy? So it's a promise as I first said, and you said not a promise, but make them happy! Now make your mind is it a promise (no intimate knowledge required) or actually making them happy (you have to know them very intimately to know what makes them happy)?
I was explaining that existence or lack of details has no bearing on ajr being physcal or not.
If we are to just take ajr as what it is (reward) then this would mean that I propose to a girl (Not just for sex) she accepts then as her reward(ajr) i take her to the cinemas and thus we are married hence we are permitted to have sex after we get back from the cinema (Would you see this as acceptable??) I actually do if the intention of the proposal is right.
There is no mention of the reason for why the women are given ajr. Or a guideline of the value of their ajr. This could mean that almost anything can be classified as ajr.Then when do you intend to make them happy? If you are not yet intimate with them, how do you know what makes them happy? So it's a promise as I first said, and you said not a promise, but make them happy! Now make your mind is it a promise (no intimate knowledge required) or actually making them happy (you have to know them very intimately to know what makes them happy)?
This is why i'm thinking that after the proposal you can't just go and have sex. You have to know them enough to be able to know what makes them happy after this stage is reached in the relationship, then would you be able to give ajr and thus be classified as married. Then would sexual relations be acceptable.
Thus if you propose to them and you don't know them that well, then you wait untill you reach that stage (no promises unless this is automatically understood between the couples). But if you know them that well and then propose to them, then you might be already at that stage where you can give ajr.
Actually your right because when you propose, the promise of the attempt to make them happy is already there.
I'm starting to think ajr in the context of marriage is not happiness -\
Savage Carrot peace
After reading most of the thread, I have to agree with Samia on this one as she makes valid points. Happiness as ajr is kinda iffy.
After discussing this with Samia, i'm starting to think so too as some of the questions she raised, i could not find a reasonable answer to. I am starting to think that Ajr should be understood in the literal sense (reward) !
But that would mean that in the example that i have given (cinema) there is no fornication or sin commited. Although in my mind and heart, i don't think there's anything wrong with that example.Can you two provide any reasons to disagree?
peace
-
If we are to just take ajr as what it is (reward) then this would mean that I propose to a girl (Not just for sex) she accepts then as her reward(ajr) i take her to the cinemas and thus we are married hence we are permitted to have sex after we get back from the cinema (Would you see this as acceptable??) I actually do if the intention of the proposal is right.
What happened to the witnesses?
Any one can promise a girl that he will commit to her, take her to the cinema, buy her some popcorn and take advantage of her.
A marriage protects both individuals from this. -
nsws peace
What happened to the witnesses?
Any one can promise a girl that he will commit to her, take her to the cinema, buy her some popcorn and take advantage of her.
A marriage protects both individuals from this.Because verse 2282 is no longer applicable to this, witnesses are not required as far as i know.
True anyone can lie and then take advantage but this does not mean that the Quran forbids it. Same can be said for traditional marriages. Anyone can lie and take advantage of things like wealth.I think it is up to the believer's judgement to make sure that they have found a believing partner. A believer would not take advantage. Also a person who tries to take advantage of a believer is IMO likely to fail as a believer would probabely know if she/he is being rushed into sex. I think advantage would be taken of when the believer goes against their insticts and agrees to being rushed. Should a person lie and pretend to be on the lines of a believer, then we are told to seperate from them 6010 as far as i know.
-
nsws peace
Because verse 2282 is no longer applicable to this, witnesses are not required as far as i know.
True anyone can lie and then take advantage but this does not mean that the Quran forbids it. Same can be said for traditional marriages. Anyone can lie and take advantage of things like wealth.Peace
Why doesn't it apply anymore? Because you are not giving ajr in material form? Don't you still need ajr when you make the oath of commitment?
I understand what you mean about taking advantage, but if someone makes an oath in front of God it isn't the same as making one to a girlfriend that they might not care about. -
After discussing this with Samia, i'm starting to think so too as some of the questions she raised, i could not find a reasonable answer to. I am starting to think that Ajr should be understood in the literal sense (reward) idea
Agreed.
But that would mean that in the example that i have given (cinema) there is no fornication or sin commited. Although in my mind and heart, i don't think there's anything wrong with that example.
Can you two provide any reasons to disagree?
One is taking it slightly into the subjective category here so might disagree a bit. interesting discussion btw, keep it going...I might not be posting regularly (thus sorry I couldn't really get into the discussion) but will certainly try to keep up whenever I'm around.
-
nsnw peace
Why doesn't it apply anymore? Because you are not giving ajr in material form? Don't you still need ajr when you make the oath of commitment?
No. I think this because the marriage commitment or the oath or the contract does not apply to the root Ba-Ya-Ayn
Samia
I think you are mixing between two different verbs related to the same root baya3a/ , verb form III (only the verb is used in the qur'aan) to promise allegence to an authority/ plight one's fealty; and bay3 / , noun/verbal noun from verb form I (only the noun is used) sale/trade.As far as i know, you don't need ajr to make the proposal. Ajr is after the proposal in order to classed as "married". Also threre is no specification on what ajr is other then reward. Thus in my example after the proposal, if i take my wife to be to the cinemas as an act of ajr (reward), we become married and nothing needs to be written down about my ajr to her in this scenario.
I understand what you mean about taking advantage, but if someone makes an oath in front of God it isn't the same as making one to a girlfriend that they might not care about
If i propose to a girl, i have commited myself to her and God is witness to all things.
I think your point would be valied if i was to propose to a girl with sex or something wrong as my primary motive for the relationship. -
Agreed.
One is taking it slightly into the subjective category here so might disagree a bit. interesting discussion btw, keep it going...I might not be posting regularly (thus sorry I couldn't really get into the discussion) but will certainly try to keep up whenever I'm around.welcome
I know it's subjective. ! but perhaps that's what God meant it to be hmm
peace
-
Quote
Why doesn't it apply anymore? Because you are not giving ajr in material form? Don't you still need ajr when you make the oath of commitment?Whoops I meant Don't you still need WITNESSES when you make the oath of commitment? Or is that only when there is a dowry contract?
And permission from guardians of the girl? -
Peace
Quote
Why doesn't it apply anymore? Because you are not giving ajr in material form? Don't you still need ajr when you make the oath of commitment?Whoops I meant Don't you still need WITNESSES when you make the oath of commitment? Or is that only when there is a dowry contract?
And permission from guardians of the girl?Have you ever heard or known of a "witnessless" marriage contract anywhere ? Even 'underhand marriages' common in Muslim countries , witnesses and AJR/Dowry are required by the presiding Imams to be present and stated before the marriage can proceed . The same practices applied in Mosques in non Muslim countries should a couple where one muslim or both muslims want to get married , will always ask for the AJR/Dowry to be stated and witnesses provided , this is a direct application of 2282 .
Anyone with a basic knowledge of the law will know that this class of contract must be reduced to writing , signed , sealed and witnessed . So , In my humble opinion , no decent man and woman who are believers will marry themselves without the basic requirements of a valid contract being satisfied . After all as believers , we must obey the authority wherever we live and marriage contract is no exception .
" O you who believe! obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from among you; then if you quarrel about anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you believe in Allah and the last day; this is better and very good in the end " ( 459 ).
Marriage , usually a contract between a man and a woman who loves each other and commit to maintain this relationship/marriage for as long as they live or or as long as their love lasts with the "consideration" being their mutual promise to support each other materially and emotionally . Is this not consistent with the requirement of 2282 for a contract of this class to be witnessed ?
Peace
almarh0m
-
Quote
Whoops I meant Don't you still need WITNESSES when you make the oath of commitment? Or is that only when there is a dowry contract?
And permission from guardians of the girl?Samia
I think you are mixing between two different verbs related to the same root baya3a/ , verb form III (only the verb is used in the qur'aan) to promise allegence to an authority/ plight one's fealty; and bay3 / , noun/verbal noun from verb form I (only the noun is used) sale/trade.peace
If you choose to give the person you intend to marry something of enough value to be worthy of being written down, then i think that that can be classified as tejarat hence 2282. This isn't exclusive to marriage nor is it compulsory in marriage IMO.
As for the witness with regards to the oath, i'm not sure. I'm not too concerned as i don't think i'll ever want to keep a relationship secret. Thus i'm not too concerned to be honest. However based on what Samia said, it appears that the marriage proposal/oath/contract does not relate to Ba-Ya-Ayn. If your arabic is good maybe should look into it but do you really plan on keeping your marriage secret?? You've just told us on this thread ;D
-
Almarh0m peace
Anyone with a basic knowledge of the law will know that this class of contract must be reduced to writing , signed , sealed and witnessed . So , In my humble opinion , no decent man and woman who are believers will marry themselves without the basic requirements of a valid contract being satisfied . After all as believers , we must obey the authority wherever we live and marriage contract is no exception .
Thank you for sharing your opinion but have you read the posts and ideas on this thread? If not, then they might be of interest to you.
Marriage , usually a contract between a man and a woman who loves each other and commit to maintain this relationship/marriage for as long as they live or or as long as their love lasts with the "consideration" being their mutual promise to support each other materially and emotionally . Is this not consistent with the requirement of 2282 for a contract of this class to be witnessed ?
I am not sure of 2282. If i assume that it is related to the marriage proposal, then it does not change much. I propose to a girl and others find out thus 2282 fulfilled.
What do you think of this example Almarh0m
I propose to a girl (believer) and i have a good intention (oath) she accepts. We are both commited and at the minimum remain faithful to one another. I take her out somewhere (ajr). From this point on, once we are both comfortable to have sex we can do so without doing anything wrong in the sight of God.
peace
-
do you really plan on keeping your marriage secret?? You've just told us on this thread ;D
I never said I am keeping it a secret. Both his family and mine know )
I'm just learning.I found this regarding guardians but it seems to only apply to guardians of a slave girl if I am correct...
Those among you who cannot afford to marry free believing women, may marry believing slave women. GOD knows best about your belief, and you are equal to one another, as far as belief is concerned. You shall obtain permission from their guardians before you marry them, and pay them their due dowry equitably...
Thats the only verse I could find regarding seeking permission from a guardian. So it may still apply if a woman was to marry a slave boy I think.
I kind find the verse about the witnesses. Anyone know it?
Doesn't 2282 refer to a loan (dayn)? It does not refer to a marriage contract to my knowledge. But if a marriage contract involves money due in the case of divorce (ie a pre-nup agreement), then I think we should follow that verse in that instance.
-
Peace everyone,
It is clear that Samia is confused on certain issues.
I have already shown from the qur'aan that AJR CANNOT MEAN WAGE. Wage is something that is ONGOING BY DEFINITION. Marriage is ongoing so "wage" would be ongoing. According to 3350 the prophet HAD ALREADY GIVEN THE UJOOR, SO IT CANNOT BE AN ONGOING THING SO IT CANNOT BE WAGE. Why is it so hard to understand such a simple thing? brickwall
When we check all the occurrences of AJR in the qur'aan, it can only mean reward, and because it is not an ongoing thing as proven by 3350, so it is a reward that has to be given after nikah/marriage either lump sum or over or after a fixed period of time. It has to be something of intrinsic value and is physical. When we see various signs mentioning AJR in the life hereafter, when it describes the AJR it is always a description of physical things. Also I have already quoted two signs earlier in which God will give AJR as compensation to what people spend out of their wealth/property so it has to be something physical and something of intrinsic value.
2262 Those who spend their wealth in the cause of God, then they do not follow what they have spent with either insult or harm; they will have their reward/AJR with their Lord, there is no fear over them nor will they grieve.
2274 Those who spend their wealth in the night and in the day, secretly and openly, they will have their reward/AJR with their Lord, there is no fear over them nor will they grieve.We are asked to give AJR to our wives as an OBLIGATION/FAREEDA.
I am disappointed with Samia. She keeps talking about "fareeda" but does not tell anyone what it means and what it is referring to. She has the audacity to say that in 2237 it does not refer to ajr. This is unbelievable nope
Let's go step by step. Let's look at 424
424 ..........................then you shall give them their dowries/UJOOR an ordinance/stipulation/settlement/FAREEDA. There is no sin upon you for what you agree to after the obligation. God is Knowledgeable, Wise.
Here AJR to wife is being called FAREEDA.
Let's see these two signs
2236 There is no sin upon you if you divorce the women before having sexual intercourse with them, or before setting/stipulating the ordinance/stipulation/settlement/FAREEDA for them. Let them have recompense, the rich according to his means, and the poor according to his means. Recompense which is in goodness, a responsibility for those in kindness.
2237 And if you divorce them before having sexual intercourse with them, but you have already set/stipulated the ordinance/stipulation/settlement/FAREEDA for them; then you must give half of what you have agreed, unless they forgive or the guardian over the marriage contract forgives. And if you forgive, it is closer to righteousness. And do not forget the favor between you; God is Seer over what you do.It is very clear that in the context of a husband wife relationship, AJR IS DIRECTLY CALLED FAREEDA per 424. Then when it is mentioned in 2236-7 in the context of marriage, we are told that we can divorce the women before setting/stipulating their FAREEDA. What is this FAREEDA being talked about? Here someone has just been married, and he immediately wants to divorce for some reason, even before intercourse. What is this FAREEDA being talked about in such a context? IT CAN ONLY BE REFERRING TO AJR (see 424). It does not require rocket science to understand that. I am really really surprised that someone like Samia cannot comprehend such a simple thing and starts misguiding others.
Now coming to 2282 and how it is related to AJR. As I have shown that AJR is something physical with intrinsic value. If it is not given at the time of marriage/nikah as a lump sum, THEN THE HUSBAND OWES IT TO THE WIFE TO BE GIVEN AFTER OR OVER A FIXED PERIOD OF TIME AFTER NIKAH. What does that come under? It comes under DYN/debt/loan which is being talked about in the first part of 2282. Hence, it HAS to be recorded as a written document if it is not paid on the spot at the time of marriage/nikah. If it is given on the spot at the time of nikah, then it comes under "tijarat hazirat", and thus there is no blame if it is not written down per 2282.
Therefore
-
If AJR is not paid on the spot at the time of nikah, and is to be paid later over or after a fixed period of time then WRITTEN AJR CONTRACT IS COMPULSORY AND TWO WITNESSES COMPULSORY.
-
If AJR is paid on the spot at the time of nikah, then written contract not compulsory but TWO WITNESSES STILL COMPULSORY.
Now coming to written marriage contract.
As per 2237, "allathee biyadihi oqdat al-nikah"/the one with/in his hand the marriage contract CAN ONLY BE THE HUSBAND as explained in one of my earlier posts. Because it says "his hand" it has to be a written contract. Hence, because it can only be referring to the husband, and it is with/in his hand, IT IS COMPULSORY. Two witnesses will also be compulsory because nikah/marriage comes under BA-YA-Ayn despite what PROFESSOR SAMIA says.
PROFESSOR SAMIA herself admits that BAAYA3 (ba-ya-alif-ayn) can mean allegiance. The word used in 2282 is TABAAYA3TUM which is of the form ba-ya-alif-ayn. What is nikah/marriage but an allegiance between two people? It is not just an allegiance/covenant but a STRONG/SOLEMN one (please see 421). Hence TWO WITNESSES ARE COMPULSORY for the marriage covenant/allegiance.
This is what I found in Lane's Lexicon
BAAYA3 AL-AMEER He promised, or swore, allegiance to the prince.
Here BAAYA3 is of the form ba-ya-alif-ayn, same as 2282, and al-ameer means prince, so baaya3 means promising or swearing allegiance.
Although majority of the time Ba-Ya-Ayn refers to buying or selling goods or an agreement/contract to buy or sell goods, it can also mean an allegiance/covenant betweeen two people.
There is another interesting meaning given in Lane Lexicon.
IMRAA'AT BAAI3 A woman who easily obtains a suitor or is in much demand.
-
-
Peace N,
found this regarding guardians but it seems to only apply to guardians of a slave girl if I am correct...
Those among you who cannot afford to marry free believing women, may marry believing slave women. GOD knows best about your belief, and you are equal to one another, as far as belief is concerned. You shall obtain permission from their guardians before you marry them, and pay them their due dowry equitably...
Thats the only verse I could find regarding seeking permission from a guardian. So it may still apply if a woman was to marry a slave boy I think.
Ma malakat aymanukum DOES NOT mean slave. That is the twisted and corrupted mistranslation based on unverifiable hearsay. If "ma malakat aymanukum" means slave then putting slave instead of ma malakat aymanukum in 424-25 will result in a NONSENSICAL interpretation.
424 And the mohsanaat from the women, except the slaves............................
Here the word "except" implies that "ma malakat aymanukum" is a subset of "mohsanat". So it would mean that mohsanaat are forbidden unless they are "slaves", so we can marry only the "slaves" from the mohsanaat category.
425 And whoever of you cannot afford to marry the believing mohsanaat, then from the slaves from the believing young women...............
This would mean that if we cannot find the "slaves" from the "mohsanaat" category, then we can marry the "slaves" from the "fatayaat" category.
SO THIS WOULD MEAN THAT THE ONLY WOMEN THAT CAN BE MARRIED ARE SLAVES o nope
As you can see that this twisting will result in nonsense.
The word used in the qur'aan for "slave" is RQB (2177, 492, 589 etc.)
Ma malakat aymanukum means "what possessed by your oath". This could either be an oath of financial support or an oath to get married (which indirectly would be an oath of financial support too), depending on the context. If you are homeless with no money and I make an oath with you to support you financially, does that make you my slave? If you are a young girl dependent on your parents for financial support, and then I make an oath with you to get married to you and then support you financially, does that make you my slave? If you are an independent lady and I make an oath to get married with you, does that make you my slave?
ONCE AGAIN, SLAVE IS RAQABAT (SINGULAR) OR RIQAAB (PLURAL) IN THE QUR'AAN.
Doesn't 2282 refer to a loan (dayn)? It does not refer to a marriage contract to my knowledge. But if a marriage contract involves money due in the case of divorce (ie a pre-nup agreement), then I think we should follow that verse in that instance.
2282 refers to DYN, TIJARAT HAAZIRAT, AND BAAYA3. It refers to three things.
AJR is a form of DYN, because if not paid on the spot at the time of nikah, it is owed by the husband to the wife. Such an AJR will be DYN, and a written contract compulsory and two witnesses compulsory. Please see my above post for details.
When AJR is paid on the spot at the time of marriage, then it will be a form of TIJARAT HAAZIRAT, and then written contract is not compulsory but two witnesses still compulsory.
2282 also refers to BAAYA3 and says it should be witnessed. Marriage contract is a form of BAAYA3. Please see my above post for details on how it pertains to marriage.
So there can be two contracts
AJR contract -----> DYN
Marriage/nikah contract -----> BAAYA3 -
Peace Nyma,
I propose to a girl (believer) and i have a good intention (oath) she accepts. We are both commited and at the minimum remain faithful to one another. I take her out somewhere (ajr). From this point on, once we are both comfortable to have sex we can do so without doing anything wrong in the sight of God.
Proposing according to the qur'aan is "khitbaat al-nisaa". It can be public or secret (2235). It is not compulsory.
Oath to get married is compulsory and would come under BAAYA3, so requires two witnesses, which is missing from your scenario.
Permission from her guardian/family would also be compulsory if she is among "fatayaat".
Marriage contract "oqdat al-nikah" is also compulsory and it has to be a written contract as I have explained before (2237). This is also missing from your scenario. See my post above addressed to everyone, and my other post earlier on how "allathee biyadihi oqdat al-nikah" can only be referring to the husband.
Witnesses are also compulsory for nikah/marriage. See my above posts on BAAYA3.
Taking her out somewhere after nikah would NOT be AJR unless she is explicitly told that this is her AJR for entering the nikah allegiance, and she agrees to it being her AJR. AJR can actually be paid even after post nikah sexual intercourse or even at the time of divorce, if mutually agreed by the husband and wife.
Your scenario clearly violates the qur'aan. If you just want to have sex with someone similar to your scenario above then go ahead and do it but don't say it is sanctioned by the god. It would just be another form of FAAHISHA.
I will repeat once again what I said in one of my earlier posts for everyone's benefit. It has all the qur'aanic references
In my understanding, the whole process can have the following steps out of which the bold ones are required for sexual intercourse
- Proposal (khitbaat al-nisaa) which can be public or secret (2235).
- Oath to get married in front of witnesses (424-25, 2282)
- Permission from guardian/family if she is dependent on them (425)
- Strong/solemn oath/covenant of marriage in front of witnesses (421, 2282)
- Written marriage contract (2237)
- Written ajr contract with witnesses (only if ajr not paid at the time of nikah/marriage) (2282)
- Payment of AJR in front of witnesses before or at the time of divorce (2282, 2236-7, 2241).
- Spending from one's wealth on the wife throughout marriage (434).
-
Peace
Almarh0m peace
Thank you for sharing your opinion but have you read the posts and ideas on this thread? If not, then they might be of interest to you.
I am not sure of 2282. If i assume that it is related to the marriage proposal, then it does not change much. I propose to a girl and others find out thus 2282 fulfilled.
What do you think of this example Almarh0m
I propose to a girl (believer) and i have a good intention (oath) she accepts. We are both commited and at the minimum remain faithful to one another. I take her out somewhere (ajr). From this point on, once we are both comfortable to have sex we can do so without doing anything wrong in the sight of God.
peace
Firstly , this thread is about 'Definition of marriage and sex before marriage as per this definition , how am I doing so far ? So I gave my opinion on the definition as well as what I understood of marriage is according to the law and the Qur'an , which I understood to be a 'civil contract' , in most countries anyway .
Secondly , If I understood you correctly in your earlier post and , which you re-iterated in your example , then you have already considered yourself and the girl as "married" by proposing to her and by your intention and exchange of oaths and commitment to be faithful to each other , as well as giving her AJR . If you follow this line of reasoning , then the subsequent sexual relationship with the girl ( who is now your wife ) , there is no sex before marriage at all , because "the sex you would have" is sex after marriage by your very own definition of it as per 'example'   .
Seriously , what you have in the example is an agreement and not a contract of marriage , as a contract of marriage requires the parties to it to confer Rights and Obligations to both man and woman which is enforcable in a court of law . Whereas the mere agreement that you had is not legallly binding at all for the simple reason that It does not satisfy the requirement of the law in whatever country you are residing , nor does it conform to 2282 . ( What recourse to the law would the girl have should you decide to renege on your promise/agreement ? She cannot sue you for breach of Promise , at least not anymore ).
I do realize of course that in real life the practice of sex before marriage is a reality which no one can deny , however I don't know any religion or culture that encourages this sort of behaviour . Having said that , personally I have not problem with adults doing their own things provided that it is consensual .
Cheers
almarh0m
-
The word used in the qur'aan for "slave" is RQB (2177, 492, 589 etc.)
ONCE AGAIN, SLAVE IS RAQABAT (SINGULAR) OR RIQAAB (PLURAL) IN THE QUR'AAN.
Dear brother truth seeker
Your definition of the word Raqaba as slave is wrong.
Raqab is the bridle which is used to control the horse,
What is Tehreer? Tehreer is a written document, any written document, when we combine Tehreer with Raqaba , that means , A deed to unbridle, Quran uses this idiomatically to mean , Setting a slave free.
"Fi il tehreer e raqaba momina", conveys , Setting a believing slave free, or Making a deed for a believer to be unbridled.
Raqab literally does not translate as "A slave". If you have some idea as to how does Arabic work , you would understand me.
siki