Defenition of marriage suggests sex before marriage permitted?!

Fahad1

Sigh... is a sign of boredom.

If nikah makes a woman almuhsanati then contradiction to say

425 And who is not able, from you capability that he marries almuhsanati

They cannot be referred to as almuhsanati before marriage (according to you).

They CAN be referred to as al-muhsanaat because they were already married(60/10).

By the way, what do you think about my explanation of 4/25? You haven't even addressed my argument for al-muhsinaat being married women!

Marriage is a commitment; families and community know they are married.

So if the family and community has not been informed, then it cannot be called a marriage?

Also back your arguments with the Quran.

Having sex with a prostitute doesn?t mean you are married to her

It means you have committed az-zina.

and already gave definition which in English two words are needed

1732 Az-Zin? 'Innahu Kna Fishatan

Adultery or fornication, which are a sub category Fahisha.

You still haven't given me a definition of zina backed by the Quran.

Yes, that nikah makes a woman almuhsanati

Address my explanation of 4/25.

1st be clear who is married
2nd be clear on ?ma malakat aymanukum?
3rd be clear on almuhsanati

Then finally you can put together an argument and regardless of exact meaning, almuhsanati minimally needs to be applicable to single and married women (e.g. honorable, etc) to not contradict other verses.

Why don't you do that yourself first?

siki

Dear Eid,

"Mohsinnats" This is one topic that I have spent some years exploring, I support you fully with your understanding of this term.

A little add on. The category in 4-22, and 4,23 are not Mohsinnas for you, because 5-5 declares mohsinnas hallal. So the prohibited (haram) 14 (4-22,23) does not fall under this term.

God calls certain categories with specific titles, like, zania, Fahisha, so these women are not Mohsinnas. A mushrika may be a chaste woman, but is not Mohsinna for a believer, Where as an elligible one from people of the book is categoriesed as a "Mohsinna". Eligible means , she does not belong to prohibited 14 nor is zania or Fahisha.

peace

siki

siki

Fahad

Brother Peace

you know I like to discuss a lot of things with you , but it becomes difficult for me when ,

You pop up after such a long time with a reply, that one loses track of the discussion, specially if the thread contains multiple discussion points/posts.
Your argumentation is broken in a way that it becomes a point to point refutation (by you) only, and one does not have a clear idea as to what you want to say or what is your understanding on the issue.

So, I would request you to come up with a short summary of your understandings, complete with the references, as to why you understand so , regarding zina and mohsinnats, and inshallah we would be able to take this discussion somewhere objectively. No offence please.

siki

siki

Fahad

Brother peace

Translating Mohsinnate as married women , is wrongest possible meaning that one can deduce,

Because translating 4-24 as married contradicts 4-25 , and also in 4-25 , the recommendation of marrying a believing mohsinnat from mma cat , who is to be a maiden , completely shatters your undestanding,

I have evaluated every verse containing this term in detail. A chaste hallal/permissible lady is the closest what we can get to translate the Title" MOHSINATE

siki

siki

Fahad

60-10 that you refered , the term being used is Mominaat, Not " mohsinnat" because,
In these mominnats , there is a reasonable possibility that a few may not qualify as mohsinnats for you. As some could be belonging to the Haram category, and some , in your opinion do not deserve the title "Mohsinna"

God is recommending that if some married believing women flee to you , because they dont want to be with those people due to religious difficulties, then , you keep them, and pay back a compensation to their non believing husbands.

And now, if i was the one , who was looking to marry some one out of these mominnat, The recommendation is that i should try my best to pick out a Mohsinna.

siki

No longer a Sunna-rejecter

What do you guys think about the following video?
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIrwex24JeM

Peace

siki

While analysing 60-10 , i came across the word "Nafaq", which in my opinion should be translated as compensation , rather than dowry or wage,

Ajar is something which is paid once for rendering a service, and hence can not be undone, if you set an ajar for a woman for sexual services , then when they are rendered, can not be paid back. but if she wants to get rid of you , and you are not ready to leave, because you think you have spent money on her in the shape of ajar and gifts, then she should pay back in the shape of Nafaq.

siki

siki

What do you guys think about the following video?
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIrwex24JeM

Peace

I have spent a significant time probing all the relevant verses, there is some truth in what He says, I am still unsure of so many things,following are my views regarding these issues.

1.There is a proper family marriage bonded by term Nikah, and there is no limit on that.

while doing nikah with the women with orphan children , recommendation is to limit it to 4 , for reducing the financial burden.

3.You can woo a woman for a certain compensation , and the relation ship is not bonded by contract nikah , but a compensation/ajar/wage is a must , and this is to have a sexual out let for maintaining chastity for both of you, instead of out pouring your lusts and seeds with so many. Both are restricted to each other. This thing is closer to what shia term as Mutta marriage. However i did not find any time limit conditions , paternity issues,and inheritance commands/orders/recommendations in quran. This needs further exploration, but i definitely get multiple subtle hints to the effect.

MA maLAKAT EMNAKUM, is the right hand possession, and are very close to sexual slave women , No ajar No compensation , for free, No limit. They probably existed then , Quran , issued orders to improve their situation and expected that ultimately this thing would die its own death. Keeping MMA now ? Not possible, but no matter how one denys. it was a reality in history, as there was slavery.

Imagine wars back then , Men killed ,women, kids and oldies taken as pow. what to do with them? So, they were allotted to the people who could afford to feed.
Men become slaves, and some women you desired,were taken/designated as MMA. Her sexual fulfillment regularised and she came under protection of a lone man, and hence was no more a target for fornication.

If it was not done back then , there was a definite chance that they (women) would out pour sexuality (natural instinct) to multiple men, and hence disease.
If there was to be a pregnancy? then No body would own the responsibility for the fear of fornication, and fathers would runaway from the responsibility, and hence the children may not get their fathers name.
Absence of this arrangement would result into rapes, and rivalary among the owners/keepers/winners/conqurers.

;D professor siki

unknownuser

Peace siki,

I have evaluated every verse containing this term in detail. A chaste hallal/permissible lady is the closest what we can get to translate the Title" MOHSINATE

siki

Exactly!

A woman who guards, preserving herself, protects her dignity, similar to the English word lady in a formal respectable sense used to address both married and single adult women.

423 (Forbidden to marry) ?

Continues also forbidden....

424 And almuhsanatu (the lady married) from the women except ma malakat aymanukum

425 And who is not able, from you capability that he marries almuhsanati (a lady single) the believing, so from ma malakat aymanukum from your youths (girls) the believers

http//www.studyquran.co.uk/PRLonline.htm

Ha-Sad-Nun = To be guarded, be inaccessible/unapproachable, be chaste, be strongly fortified, difficult to access, be preserved, be protected (against attack), abstain from what is not lawful nor decorous, preserve or guard a thing in places inaccessible/unapproachable, make or render a thing inaccessible or unapproachable or difficult to access, make/render a thing unattainable by reason of its height, to fortify oneself.
husun n.m. (pl. of husn) 592
hassana vb. (2) pcple. pass. 5914
ahsana vb. (4)
perf. act. 2191, 6612
impf. act. 1248, 2180
impf. pass. 425
pcple. act. 424, 55
pcple. pass. f. 424, 425, 425, 425, 55, 55, 244, 2423
tahassana vb. (5) n.vb. 2433
Lane's Lexicon, Volume 2, page 222, 223

Sometimes the exact same word can change meaning depending on context; e.g.

411 - he directs you (p) - God - in - you (p) children

to the male - alike - luck/fortune - the two females

5417 ? and We have - eased ? the Qur?an - to the remembrance - so is there - from ? those who remember/are mindful

siki

Peace siki,

Exactly!

423 (Forbidden to marry) ?

Continues also forbidden....

424 And almuhsanatu (the lady married) from the women except ma malakat aymanukum

Red bold part is the key point where most of the translators have gone wrong, A mohsinna would remain a Mohsinna , we can not single out its meaning at one place to mean "Only a married Mohsinna"

AND there is is no prohibited in verse 4-24. whereas there is one each in the previous two, which list the prohibited category

The only way out is ,

God lists the prohibited category in 4-22 and 4-23, and once he is through with counting the haram category , HE starts talking about the eligible Halal category by a certain title.

It is like this,

4-22 wife of your fathers haram, ,, and HE further counts 13 more in 4-23 by starting with mothers daughters, sisters,,,,,,,,etc, and completes the count with sisters in law.

When HE finishes his list by counting all the haram, HE brings/diverts the topic towards the Halal/eligible ones, by calling them with the Title "mohsinats", and tell you how to seek them.

"And The "Mohsinnats", excluding the mohsinnats, from MMa category, Here by i declare a law in this book, that what ever is besides them'; ( listed 14 haram in the previous 2 verses).. are halal for you, if you seek them with your money with a desire to maintain chastity, Not for out pouring your sexuality (just to satisfy your lusts), Thus , who ever you like among them, seek them and before you enjoy them sexually , you must pay their wages. and there is no sin if you mutually agree after the obligation. God is knowledgeable wise.

So basically in 4-24, God is talking about the eligible halal women , and is prescribing the law declaring that you must pay their wages before you take them sexually, and keep in mind that you would commit to each other before full filling your desires. And your aim should be to stay chaste rather than fulfill your uncontrolled lusts.

Setting a wage and giving it before sex is the law for Mohsinnats, however Mohsinnats belonging to MMA category are excluded from this law.

They are their for you to be taken free , NO wages.

If we scrutinize other verses , we consistently find the same law, wage a must for Mohsinnats before you touch them , and this rule not applicable to MMA. But if some one is getting married (Nikah) to a Mohsinna from MMa category, Recommendation is "as a last resort" (4-25) , only if one thinks that one might end up fornicating due to non availability of a mate,and in that case, one must pick a believing young maiden "Mohsinna" from the MMA category.

siki

truthseeker11

Peace Eid, everyone,

THIS POST IS MAINLY ADDRESSED TO BROTHER EID ALTHOUGH IT IS FOR EVERYONE'S BENEFIT.

Brother Eid, I am a big fan of yours and I appreciate your extraordinary discourses that have exposed the falsehood of the so called code 19, but in this matter I beg to disagree with your definition of mohsanaat as "chaste". I also disagree with Fahad's and Siki's definitions, and MOST of what Siki says about mohsanaat and MMA because he creates a lot of contradictions in the qur'aan resulting in nonsensical interpretations.

Mohsanaat CANNOT mean "chaste" as used in the qur'aan because then it will create a MAJOR PROBLEM if it is accepted to mean "chaste".

Mohsanaat CANNOT mean "married" only as used in the qur'aan because as you have astutely observed, it will create HUMONGOUS contradictions in the god's words.

Brother Eid, I appeal to your SHARP logic and request you to carefully consider the following

In 425, MOHSANAAT are contrasted with FATAYAAT. The only logical deduction would be that these two categories DO NOT overlap. If men are unable to marry the mohsanaat (of the MMA category as per logical deduction from 424) then they are asked to marry the fatayaat (of the MMA category).

Therefore

If you translate MOHSANAAT as chaste, then it would mean that FATAYAAT are unchaste.

This would be slandering the fatayaat. Brother Eid, please consider this logical outcome of your "chaste" definition.

The ONLY subset of women allowed to be married are MMA.

This is a very important conclusion when we combine 424 and 425. They have to be either MMA from the mohsanaat or MMA from the fatayaat. Once you realize this, then it will become crystal clear to you what these terms actually mean.

What Siki is saying is NONSENSE. I think he is off the rocker on this one.

Mohsanaat in 424 cannot be referring to the halal category with MMA as exception to that, as Siki is saying, because then the interpretation of 424 will become nonsensical.

424 And the mohsanaat from the women, except those possessed by your oath; God?s scripture is over you; and permitted for you is what is beyond this................

Firstly, the word "and" at the beginning of 424 does not mean that it is the start of a new category other than the forbidden but it means that it is the continuation of the same forbidden category of 423. In the original qur'aanic manuscripts there were no verse numbers. These verse numbers are a human innovation later on. 424 is a continuation of 423.

Secondly, "and permitted for you is what is beyond this" LOGICALLY CAN ONLY MEAN THAT MOHSANAAT ARE THE FORBIDDEN CATEGORY WITH MMA FROM THE MOHSANAAT BEING EXCEPTION TO THAT.

In 424, the MMA who are mentioned are the exception and thus logically a subset of the mohsanaat. This would mean that not all mohsanaat are forbidden, but those mohsanaat that are MMA are allowed. Then in 425 we are told that if men cannot marry the mohsanaat then they can marry the MMA from the fatayaat. But didn't the god just say in 424 that mohsanaat are forbidden except MMA? So how can men marry mohsanaat as implied by 425?

THE ONLY LOGICAL CONCLUSION WOULD BE THAT IF MEN WANT TO MARRY MOHSANAAT, THEY HAVE TO FIRST MAKE THE MOHSANAAT MMA. Thus converting the "regular mohsanaat" into "MMA mohsanaat" would become COMPULSORY in order to marry them.

Similarly with fatayaat, we are asked to marry only MMA from them. This again would mean that converting "regular fatayaat" into "MMA fatayaat" would be COMPULSORY in order to marry them.

Now what definitions of these terms will make sense and logically avoid any contradictions in the god's words?

The following is what I propose; please carefully consider this

MOHSANAAT = PROTECTED WOMEN, and because we don't need permission from their guardians they are not guardian dependent, hence they are "GUARDIAN INDEPENDENT PROTECTED WOMEN" according to the context.

FATAYAAT = YOUNG WOMEN, and because we need permission from their guardians they are guardian dependent, hence they are "GUARDIAN DEPENDENT YOUNG WOMEN" according to the context.

MMA = WHAT POSSESSED BY YOUR OATH, and because the context is marriage, this oath can only be an oath to get married to them, hence they are "THOSE WOMEN POSSESSED BY YOUR OATH TO GET MARRIED" according to the context.

This will resolve any contradiction and make total sense.

Following will be the logical implications of 424 and 425 with these meanings

Mohsanaat will include protected independent single women (self protected) and protected married women (protected by marriage) and those mohsanaat who are possessed by your oath to get married (protected by oath to get married).
The only way you can get married to such a woman is to first possess her by your oath to get married to her.
This will automatically disqualify married women because they are possessed by someone else's oath and not your oath, so the married women can never become your MMA.

This point #3 needs to be re-read many times to fully understand it.

Hence the only mohsanaat eligible to become your MMA would be the protected independent single women.
If a man cannot find such a protected independent single woman who can be possessed by his oath, then he is asked to marry a guardian dependent young woman with her guardian's permission, but first he has to possess her by his oath to get married.
Once such a guardian dependent young woman gets married through this procedure, then she gets converted to the mohsanaat category per 425, because now she is protected by marriage.
NO MMA IS EXEMPT of AJR WHEN MARRYING THEM. Siki is really off the rocker on this one. MEN HAVE TO GIVE AJR TO MMA WHEN THEY GET MARRIED TO THEM, because they are the only category allowed to be married.

NO CONTRADICTIONS, NO CONFUSION.

Brother Eid, please go through this very carefully and point out any logical errors that you can see resulting from my proposed meanings.

unknownuser

Peace siki, truthseeker et al,

NO CONTRADICTIONS, NO CONFUSION.

Brother Eid, please go through this very carefully and point out any logical errors that you can see resulting from my proposed meanings.

That's all cool, I'm open to find the non contradicting meaning which is always the best.

The subtle transition from 423 (Forbidden to marry) ?to 424 And almuhsana needs closer scrutiny and will take a look time permitting -- still busy pondering inheritance verses and few other things.

Wakas

I believe this issue is covered in 'The Natural Republic' book
http//free-minds.org/sites/default/files/TNR.pdf

My copy is the 2004 edition, not the updated one.

nimnimak_11

Truthseeker peace

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.

Agreed.

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.

hmm Not sure on this reasoning. Depends on what we understand the word physical to mean. I?ve always understood the physical descriptions to be metaphors but more importantly what we spend out of our wealth/property does not mean that our reward will be physical.

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.

Ok from this argument I agree that ajr is to be physical on the basis that 424 is related to 2237.

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.

I disagree. For example a branch of rose as ajr does not have to be written down as it is not of enough value to be written down. If it is not of enough value, then it does not come under the DYN in the context of 2282. If you lent a pen to a friend, would you have it written down or witnessed?? I wouldn?t unless the pen was of ENOUGH valuable to me.

Can you provide any evidence to prove that ajr has to be of a certain level of value?

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

It is not compulsory to my understanding. You don?t have to have an ?allathee biyadihi oqdat al-nikah?. 2237 does not say nor imply that there HAS to be an ?allathee biyadihi oqdat al-nikah? its implication is that there CAN be one.

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.

Yes. But I see no wrong in my understanding of You can propose publicly or secretly but until you agree to start a relationship it does not come under Ba-Ya-Ayn. Once it starts, THEN it may fall under Ba-Ya-Ayn thus 2 witnesses are required if this is considered as on the spot.

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.

I disagree as you have not backed this up. Verses?? I found none.
I cannot find a verse which says that ajr is mutually agreed. Thus no point in discussing this point until you provide evidence.

Your scenario clearly violates the qur'aan.

Let?s decide at the end of the discussion. I?m surprised you are writing this without giving me a chance to respond to your points.

If you just want to have sex with someone similar to your scenario above then go ahead

Truthseeker, I don?t remember saying that that?s what I want and you should not assume things because you may be wrong. Including this, I can count twice where you have MISJUDGED me and my intentions.

don't say it is sanctioned by the god

We are trying to get to the truth. We have different opinions on the Quran hence we have different opionions on what God forbids and permits. I can?t just say to you ?Don?t say that God forbids......? I don?t think this comment was necessary.

I have now changed my (minimum requirement) scenario based on your evidences I propose (openly/secretly) to a free believer and It is accepted. We tell others (witnesses). I take her out (ajr). We are now Quranically married (minimum requirement).

My points

Marriage contract does not have to be written
Ajr is not mutually agreed nor does it HAVE to be written or witnessed.

I am completely open to this. I will change my mind if you can provide reasonable answers to my points in my post to you.

Thanks,
peace

nimnimak_11

Thanks for sharing but please adress my point about ajr in my last post then this can be discussed more.
peace

Peace Nyma, everyone,

I made some errors in my previous post and I am re-posting it after correction of my errors

I was pondering on 2282 when it occurred to me that I could be wrong about the number of witnesses and also about whether a written marriage contract is always required.

Let's study 2282 step by step.

2282 O you who believe, if you borrow for a future period, then you shall record it. And let a scribe of justice record it for you; and let not the scribe refuse to record as God has taught him. Let him record and let the person who is borrowing dictate to him, and let him be aware of God, and let him not reduce from it anything.............

The first part of 2282 quoted above talks about normal procedure for DYN/debt/loan. It is obvious that there is only one witness in this scenario, i.e. the scribe who is writing the contract.

Now let's see the second part

2282 .............................. If the borrower is immature or weak or he cannot dictate himself, then let his guardian dictate with justice; and bring two witnesses from amongst your men; if there are not two men, then a man and two women from whom you will accept their testimony, so that if one of them becomes occupied, then the one can reminds the other. And let the witnesses not refuse to come if they are called.............

This part starts with an IF so everything that is said relevant to this scenario is applicable ONLY to this scenario. This part talks about if the borrower is either immature, or weak, or cannot dictate. I now have the understanding that requirement of the two extra male witnesses applies only to this scenario. This part is of the form IF .............. THEN ............ and the two male witnesses come after the THEN so I think those two extra male witnesses are needed only if the borrower is immature, weak, or cannot dictate. Actually in such a case there will be THREE witnesses. The scribe who writes the document + two male witnesses.

It makes sense that two extra male witnesses will be required because the borrower is immature or weak or cannot dictate, to prevent any possible injustice.

Now let's see the third part

2282 ............... And do not fail to record it no matter how small or large until its maturity. That is more just with God and better for the testimony, and better that you do not have doubts; 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...............

God reinforces the necessity of having a written contract and gives an exception which is that if the transaction is done on the spot then it is not required to write it down.

Let's see the fourth part

2282 ................ And have it witnessed if you conduct business/make an allegiance/covenant..............

This is a continuation of the third part. This would mean that ANY BAAYA3 requires it to be witnessed, no matter what. Here it does not specify how many witnesses so the minimum necessary would be one witness.

Applied to the first two parts it would mean the following

Normal circumstances, but transaction carried out on the spot ------> written contract not required but at least one witness.
Borrower immature or weak or cannot dictate, and transaction carried out on the spot ------> written contract not required but two witnesses required.

Now let's see how that would apply to nikah/marriage.

There can be the following four scenarios

Two parties enter nikah/marriage, and ajr to be paid later, and the husband is not weak, or unable to dictate ------> written contract required and only one witness necessary (the scribe who writes the contract).
Two parties enter nikah/marriage, and ajr to be paid later, and the husband is weak, or unable to dictate ------> written contract required and three witnesses (scribe + two male witnesses).
Two parties enter nikah/marriage, and ajr paid on the spot, and the husband is not weak, or unable to dictate ------> written contract not required and only one witness necessary (because we are told to have the transaction witnessed in the fourth part as described above).
Two parties enter nikah/marriage, and ajr paid on the spot, and the husband is weak, or unable to dictate ------> written contract not required but two male witnesses necessary.

As we can see that at least one witness will always be necessary but a written contract may or may not be required depending on whether the transaction was carried on the spot or was delayed.

In the 3rd and 4th scenario above, there is no written contract and one can then argue that in those cases no written marriage contract is necessary. This may be true because even in 2237, a written marriage contract is mentioned but it is in the context of AJR not yet paid, so it is one of the first two scenarios described above. 2237 talks about divorce, without sexual intercourse, and AJR has been stipulated/specified but not yet paid, thereby necessitating a written contract and this contract is what is referred to in that sign as "oqdat al-nikah"/marriage contract.

EVERYONE PLEASE RE-READ WHAT I HAVE SAID ABOVE CAREFULLY BECAUSE IT CAN APPEAR TO BE A LITTLE COMPLEX, BUT ONCE UNDERSTOOD IT IS NOT THAT COMPLEX.

Summary

SCENARIOS 1 & 2 above written contract necessary + one witness or three witnesses (scribe and two male witnesses) required depending on condition of the husband.
SCENARIOS 3 & 4 above written contract not required + one witness or two male witnesses required depending on condition of the husband.

Fahad1

Peace bro.

Fahad

Brother Peace

you know I like to discuss a lot of things with you , but it becomes difficult for me when ,

You pop up after such a long time with a reply, that one loses track of the discussion, specially if the thread contains multiple discussion points/posts.

I understand that bro and I am very sorry about it. I wish I could be more regular, but my current schedule is such that I can't help it. So please bear with me.

Your argumentation is broken in a way that it becomes a point to point refutation (by you) only, and one does not have a clear idea as to what you want to say or what is your understanding on the issue.

So, I would request you to come up with a short summary of your understandings, complete with the references, as to why you understand so , regarding zina and mohsinnats, and inshallah we would be able to take this discussion somewhere objectively. No offence please.

A point by point "refutation" or address becomes necessary where people like to make so many points without backing them. But whenever I have summarized my understanding, the main arguments usually go unaddressed(in this discussion and many, if not most, previous ones as well). For example, my understanding of 4/25 still hasn't been addressed even though that's my only argument about al-muhsanaat being married women!

I will try to summarize my understanding again in a better way. No offence taken.

Fahad1

Fahad

60-10 that you refered , the term being used is Mominaat, Not " mohsinnat" because,
In these mominnats , there is a reasonable possibility that a few may not qualify as mohsinnats for you. As some could be belonging to the Haram category, and some , in your opinion do not deserve the title "Mohsinna"

I didn't say 60/10 is referring to al-muhsanaat, but to the "MMA". They can include both al-muhsanaat and fatayaat.

God is recommending that if some married believing women flee to you , because they dont want to be with those people due to religious difficulties, then , you keep them, and pay back a compensation to their non believing husbands.

And now, if i was the one , who was looking to marry some one out of these mominnat, The recommendation is that i should try my best to pick out a Mohsinna.

I will address this in the summary.

Fahad1

Translating Mohsinnate as married women , is wrongest possible meaning that one can deduce,

Because translating 4-24 as married contradicts 4-25 , and also in 4-25 , the recommendation of marrying a believing mohsinnat from mma cat , who is to be a maiden , completely shatters your undestanding,

But where does it say the 'al-muhsana' is to be maiden/unmarried? Or did you just assume that?

siki

But where does it say the 'al-muhsana' is to be maiden/unmarried? Or did you just assume that?

Fatayat is being translated as girls, young maiden, young women, by different translators, However, the correct meaning of fatayat is , Young females,
The stress , being on a Fatayat,from MMA, Not just any woman,

Translators translating them to be as girls or maidens are imagining too far. Although there are bright chances for these young females to be unmarried/maiden, however we can not preclude that some young female could be a widow or divorcee, you are right in pointing it out.

siki

siki

I didn't say 60/10 is referring to al-muhsanaat, but to the "MMA". They can include both al-muhsanaat and fatayaat.

Off course , we do find muhsinnats in MMA cateogry and Fatayats as well, A mohsinna can be a fatayat, and a fatayat may not be a MOHsinna, But there is no MMA in this aya.
60-10 is discussing an issue regarding MOMINNAT ILL MOHJIRRATE.
siki