How sex before Marriage is not haram (prohibited) according to the Quran

nimnimak_11

It's not so much about "rational" values as it is about Western values, a few centuries ago the Koran prohibiting wife beating would probably be considered irrational

Yes but back then in that kind of a society there wasn't much use of reason. They would perhaps deem it as non-sense but if they sat down and properly reasoned, they would most likely to realise that their actions were counter to compassion and irrational with regards to what they were trying to gain.

I think a look at the ancient Greeks and their philosophical and political theories shows the sort of unviersality and objectivity that reason has. Considering how far back they go and how influential and relevant their philosophical and political content are today, I think we can assume that reason when exercised effectively leads to something objective.

When it comes to "credible studies" and what is "beneficial", Allah's "opinion" (He doesn't have one, Allah's "opinion" is truth of course but for practical reasons I say "opinion&quot of what is beneficial overrides any other opinion.

Allah's "opinion" is law like. What we are trying to do is understand what is the correct way to bring about x and the tools we are given are reason, research and scripture. But given the odds of mistranslation and misinterpretation, we should not put scripture ahead of reason since between the tools we are given, it is less likely that we would go wrong with our reason (in my opinion) and that to defend my point of view via the Quran, I would say that we are responsible for our intellect/brain/aql. If we forgo our aql for interpretation i think it harder to justify to the God. There's got to be some proportion where the credibility of interpretation vs. the objection of reason vs. the consequences are taken into account. For example i don't see it rational that pork should be prohibited but I still keep off it because a) the interpretation is fairly clear b) i harm no one other than me and c) the harm to me is little. But in the case of say lashing, I would never carry it out and i would put effort into stopping it being carried out since it strongly goes against reason even though the interpretation is fairly clear there still is a chance that we are missing something important from the interpretation.

What research does is give us sufficient evidence to think that for exmaple lashing is actually the right thing to do in that context. If some research suggested that via lashing effect x happens, then I would advocate lashing rather than oppose it. Of course the research could be mistaken but i think I can justify myself to the God as being sufficiently cautious.

What do you mean by "how do we account for"? Where is the difficulty?

What I meant was given those verses, I cannot see how we can say sex is exclusive to marriage. That is how else can we account for these verses and what they are conveying.

nimnimak_11

Salam Johan

i don't understand what you're trying to say here.

I meant that the verse (424) makes it clear that marriage is for the sake of independence and not sex. Thus the idea of wife prostitution would not hold. Even if the procedure of nikah is carried out, it is not carried out Quranically since the intention of wife-swap here is sex and not to be become muhsin. For that reason, wife-prostitution becomes impossible if we are to go by the Quran. I think this makes sense considering the goals and purposes of marriage. Something like wife-prostitution would make a mockery of marriage.

the essential assumption of how a relationship between man and women should be based on..
the essential assumption of how a stable family life is build on top of.

I agree. In my opnion that is why there is a marriage contract. The marriage contract IMO is not for unlocking sex. Unless it can be argued that marriage is for family which is for kids which means sex (that leads to kids) should be exclusive to marriage. Which in turn would place a limitation on how one would unguard their private parts to their MMA. But then how do we account for Mary and Jesus?

in here baghiyya is translated as unchaste, but literally would mean rebellious. Rebellious to the laws of Allah SWT; but in what sense?

I'm looking at this now. I'l hopefully post what I find out later on in the day (if i get sufficient info).

Peace

nimnimak_11

Peace Johan

Sahih International
She said, "How can I have a boy while no man has touched me and I have not been unchaste?"

Mary points out that a) no man has yamasani (touched) her and that she has not been baghiyyan.

I think the relevant meaning of the use of baghiyyan by Mary in 1920 is

She committed fornication, or adultery; she prostituted herself; (JK, 8, Mglh, M.b, 1 because
she who does so transgresses her proper bounds;

I think this because In 2433 i cannot see the use of bigha as relating to grudge or rebelliousness in any way.

2433 And do not force your fatayat women to bigha if they have desired to be independent, in order that you may make a gain in the goods of this worldly life. And if anyone has compelled them, then for their compulsion, God is Forgiving, Merciful.

I don't understand why 2433 only refers to the fatayat and not to the muhsinat but here bigha seems to refer to sex that is not wanted by the fatayat (since they are being forced) which I think would be one instance of transgressing the woman's proper bounds with regards to sex. So perhaps prostitution is ruled out because the sex is unwanted and any instance of unwanted sex is an example of transgressing the appropriate bounds with regards to sex.

In 1920 perhaps Mary is saying that she has neither had permissible nor impermissible sex thus a child is impossible in her case.

In another verse however she never expresses bigha 347 Sahih International She said, "My Lord, how will I have a child when no man has touched me?" said, "Such is Allah ; He creates what He wills. When He decrees a matter, He only says to it, 'Be,' and it is.

Peace

Sir_Comcision

Yes but back then in that kind of a society there wasn't much use of reason. They would perhaps deem it as non-sense but if they sat down and properly reasoned, they would most likely to realise that their actions were counter to compassion and irrational with regards to what they were trying to gain.

Since when did "compassion" have anything to do with reason? I'm just sayin', for Muslims it's irrational to assume that just because there is something in the Koran that appears "outdated" it is invalid. It's a matter of being logically consistent.

Allah's "opinion" is law like. What we are trying to do is understand what is the correct way to bring about x and the tools we are given are reason, research and scripture. But given the odds of mistranslation and misinterpretation, we should not put scripture ahead of reason since between the tools we are given, it is less likely that we would go wrong with our reason (in my opinion) and that to defend my point of view via the Quran, I would say that we are responsible for our intellect/brain/aql. If we forgo our aql for interpretation i think it harder to justify to the God. There's got to be some proportion where the credibility of interpretation vs. the objection of reason vs. the consequences are taken into account. For example i don't see it rational that pork should be prohibited but I still keep off it because a) the interpretation is fairly clear b) i harm no one other than me and c) the harm to me is little. But in the case of say lashing, I would never carry it out and i would put effort into stopping it being carried out since it strongly goes against reason even though the interpretation is fairly clear there still is a chance that we are missing something important from the interpretation.

My point is that it's not rational to say that the Koran is the absolute word of God and then pick and choose from what you want to follow of it.

What research does is give us sufficient evidence to think that for exmaple lashing is actually the right thing to do in that context. If some research suggested that via lashing effect x happens, then I would advocate lashing rather than oppose it. Of course the research could be mistaken but i think I can justify myself to the God as being sufficiently cautious.

Why do you need "research" when God himself confirms that lashing is just?

nimnimak_11

I'm just sayin', for Muslims it's irrational to assume that just because there is something in the Koran that appears "outdated" it is invalid. It's a matter of being logically consistent.

And I agree.

My point is that it's not rational to say that the Koran is the absolute word of God and then pick and choose from what you want to follow of it.

Again I agree. But I it's rational to be cautious over interpretation given the possibility of inaccuracies before carrying out what certain interpretations convey. It's more a case of understanding and acknowledging before practicing rather than picking and choosing what to practice.

Why do you need "research" when God himself confirms that lashing is just?

Because a verse may make no sense and this may be down a mistaken interpretation. This is not the same as rejecting what the God confirms. Lashing may be a misinterpretation or just something that makes no sense to someone who does not have the relevant knowledge.

Given the seriousness of the act, in my opnion we should not carry out the act until we come to be in possession of some relevant information that then renders lashing as the sensible thing to do. Because if we don't, in my opinion we have not used our aql sufficiently and we can thus be held accountable for the lashing we afflicted on the adultrer.

johan

Peace nimnimak,
I think wer're on the same side now bro on this subject..
kind of weired to say it but i'm shifting sides, or should i say swinging it..

watch this

For those who swear not to have sexual relations with their wives is a waiting time of four months, but if the period passes - then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

now why oh why does the husband need to wait till the nth period if he was the husband since the beginning of time?
if it's not because somebody else might be legitimately moving in on the wife even though the wife is married to him..?

so i guess the purpose of the marriage institution is to guarantee nomatter who is the progenitor of the child in the womb of the wife the husband will always be the father and the child will always be the legitimate benefactor of his inheritance..

iam eager to hear opinions..

let me just add the reason why Yousouf AS did not make a move on his Fathers wife..you guessed it..
it's because it's his father's wife..

Sahih International
And the one from Egypt who bought him said to his wife, "Make his residence comfortable. Perhaps he will benefit us, or we will adopt him as a son." And thus, We established Joseph in the land that We might teach him the interpretation of events. And Allah is predominant over His affair, but most of the people do not know.

Sahih International
And do not marry those whom your fathers married, except what has already occurred. Indeed, it was an immorality and hateful and was evil as a way.

so could it be safe to say that i guess at the end of the day..to us human we don't really have to know much about the bloodlines..
because at the end of the day we came from the same father and mother..Adam AS and his wife..

but what we need to care is who will rightfully inherit us..?
and who will need to take care of us when we are children..?

Mothers may breastfeed their children two complete years for whoever wishes to complete the nursing . Upon the progenitor is the mothers' provision and their clothing according to what is acceptable. No person is charged with more than his capacity. No mother should be harmed through her child, and no progenitor through his child. And upon the heir is like that . And if they both desire weaning through mutual consent from both of them and consultation, there is no blame upon either of them. And if you wish to have your children nursed by a substitute, there is no blame upon you as long as you give payment according to what is acceptable. And fear Allah and know that Allah is Seeing of what you do.

I would assume that if the women is not married then the progenitor has the obligation to feed the child and the child has the right of being the benefactor of the inheritance..?
it's just kind of hard to determine who's who without a propper wedlock..hmm..
i guess the father is not responsible for the upkeep of the child but the progenitor is..

i'm actually not sure about the inheritance..maybe someone would shed light.. i currently don't have time to search on it..

so the terms wife and husband has to do a lot with inheritance..
while the term progenitors has to do a lot with the upkeeping..

wallahua3lam..

mmkhan

For those who swear not to have sexual relations with their wives is a waiting time of four months, but if the period passes - then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

Salaam,

I have problem with the translation above . Arabic word used in this aayat is "faaa-oou" which does not mean "if the period passes".

Please check 499 for two other derivatives of the same word as "tafiyy-a" and "faaa-at". There are more derivatives of this word is available in AlQuraan.

2226 "....if they return/get back...." should be the correct translation inshaAllah.

Sorry for my interference in your discussion brothers, I thought it is necessary so I joined in.

May Allah increase us in knowledge and guide us to His true path pr
mmKhan

johan

Salaam,

I have problem with the translation above . Arabic word used in this aayat is "faaa-oou" which does not mean "if the period passes".

Please check 499 for two other derivatives of the same word as "tafiyy-a" and "faaa-at". There are more derivatives of this word is available in AlQuraan.

2226 "....if they return/get back...." should be the correct translation inshaAllah.

Sorry for my interference in your discussion brothers, I thought it is necessary so I joined in.

May Allah increase us in knowledge and guide us to His true path pr
mmKhan

Salam mmKhan,

you're quite right bro.. glad you corrected me..

i got confused with this word as in

in the sense of the month being lost/passed by..

so let me get this straight..
the reason for the waiting is so that she gets some sort of certainty in her basic needs..and thus the months rather than periods as per the following next verses..
after which a divorce and only after that does the periods come in..she will need another 3 periods before she can marry again..

that's really tough..
...
peace

mmkhan

Salam mmKhan,

you're quite right bro.. glad you corrected me..

i got confused with this word as in

in the sense of the month being lost/passed by..

so let me get this straight..
the reason for the waiting is so that she gets some sort of certainty in her basic needs..and thus the months rather than periods as per the following next verses..
after which a divorce and only after that does the periods come in..she will need another 3 periods before she can marry again..

that's really tough..
...
peace

Salaam bro,

But that four months waiting period is for men who swear with their wives. After that if they don't return that is considered as talaaq and then divorced women has to wait for three months before she gets marry.

First "Iddat" of four months is for men.

Yes it is really tough, if you compare with other aayaats Allah always try to keep them in marriage, Allah never prefers divorce also people should not play with divorce so the first waiting period is for men.

This is how I understand.

Now new talaaq is so easy that recently we have new fatwas in news paper about divorce in different conditions.

1- While chatting if husband used the word talaaq three times, their marriage is void.
2- On phone if husband used the word talaaq three times, their marriage is void.
3- Even if husband used the word talaaq three times in joke, their marriage is void.
4- If husband repeat the word talaaq three times even if there is no witness or in absence of his wife, their marriage is void.

I am thinking these people don't read the word talaaq in AlQuraan also? hmm

They made it so simple to talaaq that they enjoy halaala there are some blind people whom this divorced women get married for one night, after that they will pay some amount to that blind and he gives talaaq next day and then she can marry to her old / previous husband.

How sad and how sick. May Allah protect us. See how powerful Allah's rules are compare to their. BTW, I should add that talaaq is only twice in a life time.

May Allah increase us in knowledge and guide us to His true path pr
mmKhan

johan

Salaam bro,

But that four months waiting period is for men who swear with their wives. After that if they don't return that is considered as talaaq and then divorced women has to wait for three months before she gets marry.

First "Iddat" of four months is for men.

Yes it is really tough, if you compare with other aayaats Allah always try to keep them in marriage, Allah never prefers divorce also people should not play with divorce so the first waiting period is for men.

This is how I understand.

Now new talaaq is so easy that recently we have new fatwas in news paper about divorce in different conditions.

1- While chatting if husband used the word talaaq three times, their marriage is void.
2- On phone if husband used the word talaaq three times, their marriage is void.
3- Even if husband used the word talaaq three times in joke, their marriage is void.
4- If husband repeat the word talaaq three times even if there is no witness or in absence of his wife, their marriage is void.

I am thinking these people don't read the word talaaq in AlQuraan also? hmm

They made it so simple to talaaq that they enjoy halaala there are some blind people whom this divorced women get married for one night, after that they will pay some amount to that blind and he gives talaaq next day and then she can marry to her old / previous husband.

How sad and how sick. May Allah protect us. See how powerful Allah's rules are compare to their. BTW, I should add that talaaq is only twice in a life time.

May Allah increase us in knowledge and guide us to His true path pr
mmKhan

Salam mmKhan,

you do realize that men can marry more than one..
so it won't effect the men if the motives were the basic needs..but it would effect the women..
that would destabilize her, but i am just a human i don't know for sure..

it doesn't make sense if bloodlines is so important to track..
the only one who is able to track is Allah SWT, so we can only put trust on Allah SWT to track..

Sahih International
He said, "O Noah, indeed he is not of your family; indeed, he is work was other than righteous, so ask Me not for that about which you have no knowledge. Indeed, I advise you, lest you be among the ignorant."

i feel that what we need to do is to care for those children whether it's our bloodline or not..
and that there is a way to institutionalize it through inheritance of some sort and MMA and what not..

so couldn't there be possibilities of miss transcribing the codec?
from faatoo to faa'oo..
it's only difference is a hamza instead of ta dots???i don't know if there were dots in the old inscriptions..

wallahua3lam

mmkhan

Salaam brother,

As per my current understanding, men can marry only one women at a time. Secondly, again translation of 1146 is wrong. That was not Nooh's own son.

I am not writing in detail cause to avoid off-topic.

May Allah increase us in knowledge and guide us to His true path pr
mmKhan

johan

Salaam brother,

As per my current understanding, men can marry only one women at a time. Secondly, again translation of 1146 is wrong. That was not Nooh's own son.

I am not writing in detail cause to avoid off-topic.

May Allah increase us in knowledge and guide us to His true path pr
mmKhan

Salam brother,

we are in disagreement with 1st point.
for the second point, the translation never mentioned son but family..
i feel that the concept of ahl(family) has a lot to do with inheritance..

Sahih International
And never is it for a believer to kill a believer except by mistake. And whoever kills a believer by mistake - then the freeing of a believing slave and a compensation payment presented to the deceased's family unless they give charity. But if the deceased was from a people at war with you and he was a believer - then the freeing of a believing slave; and if he was from a people with whom you have a treaty - then a compensation payment presented to his family and the freeing of a believing slave. And whoever does not find - then , a fast for two months consecutively, acceptance of repentance from Allah. And Allah is ever Knowing and Wise.

but if you wish not to discuss further then i will not ..

wallahua3lam,

mmkhan

Salam brother,

we are in disagreement with 1st point.
for the second point, the translation never mentioned son but family..
i feel that the concept of ahl(family) has a lot to do with inheritance..
but if you wish not to discuss further then i will not ..

wallahua3lam,

Salaam brother,

I respect your decision on disagreement.

Second one, yes but it is about the son, if you read carefully it is about the son not about other family members of Nooh.

If you want to discuss further please open another thread brother for this discussion.

Thanks,
mmKhan

nimnimak_11

Peace Johan and Mmkhan

Something I've been struggling with is trying to determine which verses apply to husband and wife, and which verses apply to individual and MMA.

For example
2222 And they ask you about the menstruations? Say "It is harmful, so keep away from the women during the menstruations, and do not approach them until they are cleansed. When they are cleansed, then you may approach them as God has commanded you." God loves the repenters and He loves the cleansed.

Is this verse exclusive to marriage or does the usage of the term women instead of zawj or some other like term mean that it also applies to MMAs? I can't see how this would not also apply to MMAs. It would be absurd to say that we can approach our MMAs but then once they become our wives we cannot approach them.

then later on you have

2226 For those who abstain from their women, they shall be given four months. If they cease, then God is Forgiving, Merciful.

Here instead of zawj or some other like term that establishes the exclusivity of this verse for married relations only, the term nisa is used again which. Does that mean that those who are in an unmarried relationship should also wait for four months before separating?

I think based on earlier discussions, marriage is not something that is done overnight. By the time one finds the right person and verifies that they fit the purposes for marriage in relation to themselves, it is something that takes a while and there is an implication that that relationship wherein which the individual is ready to prepare for nikah is one where the bond is close. Thus it would make sense here to have a four month waiting period to make sure that the decision being made is the right one and not one out of haste. I don't think this can be applied to say a short relationship with an MMA. Now whether there was any sex during that short time or not, may change things. Perhaps the term yu'lna (swear (off)) can better clarify in what context, based on what action, and what conditions and relationship status between the man and woman, is the man supposed to have a waiting period of 4 months before seperating?

then later on

2230 So if he divorces her again, then she will not be lawful for him until after she has married a different husband; if he divorces her; then there is no sin that they come back together if they think they will uphold the boundaries of God. These are the boundaries of God, He clarifies them for a people who know.

Here the word talaq and zawj is used as well as nikah. I'm not sure why zawj is used here since they don't qualify for the status of zawj until after the marriage has taken place and not before.

Either way 2230 seems to establish that it is with regards to zawj and marriage. The question is which of the verses that lead up to this were also referring to a married relationship. I think that 2226 is with regards to marriage but 2222 i don't think so mainly because it would be absurd unless we assume that that kind of approach which is prohibited during the mensturations is exclusive to marriage. If so then we need to like outline what exactly constitutes that kind of approach towards the women.

nimnimak_11

Peace nimnimak,
I think wer're on the same side now bro on this subject..
kind of weired to say it but i'm shifting sides, or should i say swinging it.. )

watch this

now why oh why does the husband need to wait till the nth period if he was the husband since the beginning of time?
if it's not because somebody else might be legitimately moving in on the wife even though the wife is married to him..?

so i guess the purpose of the marriage institution is to guarantee nomatter who is the progenitor of the child in the womb of the wife the husband will always be the father and the child will always be the legitimate benefactor of his inheritance..

iam eager to hear opinions..

let me just add the reason why Yousouf AS did not make a move on his Fathers wife..you guessed it..
it's because it's his father's wife..

so could it be safe to say that i guess at the end of the day..to us human we don't really have to know much about the bloodlines..
because at the end of the day we came from the same father and mother..Adam AS and his wife..

but what we need to care is who will rightfully inherit us..?
and who will need to take care of us when we are children..?I would assume that if the women is not married then the progenitor has the obligation to feed the child and the child has the right of being the benefactor of the inheritance..?
it's just kind of hard to determine who's who without a propper wedlock..hmm..
i guess the father is not responsible for the upkeep of the child but the progenitor is..

i'm actually not sure about the inheritance..maybe someone would shed light.. i currently don't have time to search on it..

so the terms wife and husband has to do a lot with inheritance..
while the term progenitors has to do a lot with the upkeeping..

wallahua3lam..

Peace Johan

I'm really unsure about 2226 as to whether it applies to just husband and wife or also MMA.

it's just kind of hard to determine who's who without a propper wedlock..hmm.

I agree. Which is why I'm thinking of two possibilities. Either the verses with regards to menstruation and separation and waiting periods also apply to MMAs, or sex is not considered as permissible with MMAs. But given 235-6, 423-25 and Mary's usage of the word touch, I think it can be concluded that sexual acts are permitted with MMAs so long as the acts involved make the probability of pregnancy 0% This would solve the issue of waiting periods (i think) but it might no be so clear on 2222. But I think that is fairly self-evident that 2222 is referring to MMAs as well zawj. I can't say the same for the other verses with regards to divorce and waiting periods.

At the moment I think that sexual acts with MMA, provided that children are impossible is permissible. In the case of where someone can't have kids, then I think unprotected sex is acceptable. I think the important thing here is whether there will be a pregnancy (which is impossible outside of marriage) or whether a potentially good marriage will be ruined out of haste (which the four month period helps prevent)

Thats my current position Brother. It makes sense to me and I think it makes sense in the context of the Quran.

With regards to Prophet Yousuf. I think the fact that the wife had a husband was enough to render Yousuf's action (if he were to yield to desire that is) very wrong. If the man was his father then it's even more wrong o

Peace

johan

Peace Johan and Mmkhan

Something I've been struggling with is trying to determine which verses apply to husband and wife, and which verses apply to individual and MMA.

For example
2222 And they ask you about the menstruations? Say "It is harmful, so keep away from the women during the menstruations, and do not approach them until they are cleansed. When they are cleansed, then you may approach them as God has commanded you." God loves the repenters and He loves the cleansed.

Is this verse exclusive to marriage or does the usage of the term women instead of zawj or some other like term mean that it also applies to MMAs? I can't see how this would not also apply to MMAs. It would be absurd to say that we can approach our MMAs but then once they become our wives we cannot approach them.

Salam nimnimak,
I think I have 2 points to make on this one

nissa'(women/female?) is more likely to be the generalised term while the fatayat, ummahat, imra'ah are it's specialised terms..(need proof)
zawj is sex independant; can be male/female (need proof)

then later on you have

2226 For those who abstain from their women, they shall be given four months. If they cease, then God is Forgiving, Merciful.

Here instead of zawj or some other like term that establishes the exclusivity of this verse for married relations only, the term nisa is used again which. Does that mean that those who are in an unmarried relationship should also wait for four months before separating?

I also think this points to MMA's and Zawj, which seems to fortify the concept of outside wedlock (zawj).

I think based on earlier discussions, marriage is not something that is done overnight. By the time one finds the right person and verifies that they fit the purposes for marriage in relation to themselves, it is something that takes a while and there is an implication that that relationship wherein which the individual is ready to prepare for nikah is one where the bond is close. Thus it would make sense here to have a four month waiting period to make sure that the decision being made is the right one and not one out of haste. I don't think this can be applied to say a short relationship with an MMA. Now whether there was any sex during that short time or not, may change things. Perhaps the term yu'lna (swear (off)) can better clarify in what context, based on what action, and what conditions and relationship status between the man and woman, is the man supposed to have a waiting period of 4 months before seperating?

I think based on 412 inheritance is the motif for marriage.
The term walad (the begoten) is the rightful inheritor to their genealogical parents (walidah n mawlood mentioned in 2233).
The term waarith(the inheritor) in 2233 is the inheritor of the responsibilities of the walidah n mawlood?

Sahih International
Mothers may breastfeed their children two complete years for whoever wishes to complete the nursing . Upon the father is the mothers' provision and their clothing according to what is acceptable. No person is charged with more than his capacity. No mother should be harmed through her child, and no father through his child. And upon the heir is like that . And if they both desire weaning through mutual consent from both of them and consultation, there is no blame upon either of them. And if you wish to have your children nursed by a substitute, there is no blame upon you as long as you give payment according to what is acceptable. And fear Allah and know that Allah is Seeing of what you do.

Sahih International
And for you is half of what your wives/husbands? leave if they have no child. But if they have a child, for you is one fourth of what they leave, after any bequest they made or debt. And for the wives is one fourth if you leave no child. But if you leave a child, then for them is an eighth of what you leave, after any bequest you made or debt. And if a man or woman leaves neither ascendants nor descendants but has a brother or a sister, then for each one of them is a sixth. But if they are more than two, they share a third, after any bequest which was made or debt, as long as there is no detriment . an ordinance from Allah, and Allah is Knowing and Forbearing.

but all in all, i think the moral of the story is that marriage means the inheriting of the spouse's assets n liabilities in case one of them pass away, this is the big commitment.
i would guess that it would complicate the calculation if the son marries the wife of the father, thus the forbidding of it.(need proof)
are the children part of the assets/liabilities? i would guess yes until they reach a certain maturity level where they can be independant..(need proof)

then later on

2230 So if he divorces her again, then she will not be lawful for him until after she has married a different husband; if he divorces her; then there is no sin that they come back together if they think they will uphold the boundaries of God. These are the boundaries of God, He clarifies them for a people who know.

Here the word talaq and zawj is used as well as nikah. I'm not sure why zawj is used here since they don't qualify for the status of zawj until after the marriage has taken place and not before.

Either way 2230 seems to establish that it is with regards to zawj and marriage. The question is which of the verses that lead up to this were also referring to a married relationship. I think that 2226 is with regards to marriage but 2222 i don't think so mainly because it would be absurd unless we assume that that kind of approach which is prohibited during the mensturations is exclusive to marriage. If so then we need to like outline what exactly constitutes that kind of approach towards the women.

i think 2230 can be used to establish the definition of zawj in relationship to marriage. the phrase would refer to the next commitment of husband/wife that is apart from the ex/previous-husband/wife.
i also think that is why marriage has nothing to do with locking with who you can have sexual intercourse with, but rather to who your next born child will be burdened/prized(depending on pov) to in terms of the upkeep and in terms of the inheritance status..
and this is probably why you don't just exchange between two husbands and two wives as in 420, but you need to undergo a divorce ceremony first to honor the commitments of the womb, and hence the 3 periods..otherwise the commitment to share the burden is of no use ever since the marriage was commenced between the two..

opinions please

wallahua3lam

nimnimak_11

Salam Johan

nissa'(women/female?) is more likely to be the generalised term while the fatayat, ummahat, imra'ah are it's specialised terms..(need proof)
zawj is sex independant; can be male/female (need proof)

I agree with both points

I also think this points to MMA's and Zawj, which seems to fortify the concept of outside wedlock (zawj)

I'm sort of uncertain with this. The verses that follow which mention talagh (divorce) all appear to be in the context of a zawj and nikah bond. In particular 2230 I think is a good implication that the word talagh only with regards to marriages. But then again at the same time i'm thinking what happens when someone seperates from their MMA. That's also talagh right? So it could be argued that 2226's use of talagh is not exclusive to only those who are married. It also applies to other relationships. But at the same time other relationships would have to be a sexual relationship or something intense because it can't be the case that 4 months waiting period is practised for a relationship that lasted 3 days.
The question is what exactly does the term yu'lna entail.

I think based on 412 inheritance is the motif for marriage.

Interesting. I think that would be one of the key reasons maybe even the main reason.

The term walad (the begoten) is the rightful inheritor to their genealogical parents (walidah n mawlood mentioned in 2233).
The term waarith(the inheritor) in 2233 is the inheritor of the responsibilities of the walidah n mawlood?

I agree with both and no other alternative would make sense in the case of what waarith means in my opinion.

i would guess that it would complicate the calculation if the son marries the wife of the father, thus the forbidding of it.(need proof)

Not sure on this. I think the mean reason for the forbidding of that is that it is intrinsically lewd. The verse says that it is for this reason. If it was down to complicating things with regards to inheritance, then it would be prohibited on other grounds than lewdness.

422 And do not marry who your fathers had married from the women, except what has already been done. It is a lewdness, and an abhorrence, and an evil path.

i also think that is why marriage has nothing to do with locking with who you can have sexual intercourse with, but rather to who your next born child will be burdened/prized(depending on pov) to in terms of the upkeep and in terms of the inheritance status..
and this is probably why you don't just exchange between two husbands and two wives as in 420, but you need to undergo a divorce ceremony first to honor the commitments of the womb, and hence the 3 periods..otherwise the commitment to share the burden is of no use ever since the marriage was commenced between the two..

I agree. This implies that having children with other men to whom one is not married to is impermissible. What then happens in the case of when a couple want a child but the man can't have kids so they find a sperm donor? What does that do to our discussion of to whom kids should be born and by who's sperm and egg they should be born?

Peace

johan

Salam nimnimak,

in general i got this notion of needing to reevaluate all the definition of the terms that are involved with family, relationship, inheritance, sexual intercourse, morality(lewdness/fa7sha, bagiyya, stealing) etc into one integrated theme..
i have this feeling that it tends towards creating a heaven on earth.. )

the idea is like at first people will be reluctant to embrace this heaven on earth idea the way they didn't comprehend the earth not being flat in those days..
Allah SWT played with conventional words like madadnaha(spread/stretch) to give the notion of it's flatness common in that time,
but He also played word riddles like da77aha(ostrich egg) to give a possibility of a different interpretation..

that interpretation only now we understood for certainty after taking a snapshot from out of space..

what i'm getting at is this
why the complication of different words to mean the same thing, unless it wasn't intended to mean the same thing in the first place, such as
mawlood, zawj, ba3l to point to the notion of husband?? or maybe they are specific terms for specific purposes with specific paradigms..
etc.etc.etc.

i hope i got my point across..
i think we're into something, right?

wallahua3lam
peace

SarahY

I think part of people's understandings of the various words have contributed to the varying interpretations

So if any of you could summarise what you have come up with /concluded/unresolved, that would be nice

nimnimak_11

Salam nimnimak,

in general i got this notion of needing to reevaluate all the definition of the terms that are involved with family, relationship, inheritance, sexual intercourse, morality(lewdness/fa7sha, bagiyya, stealing) etc into one integrated theme..
i have this feeling that it tends towards creating a heaven on earth..

the idea is like at first people will be reluctant to embrace this heaven on earth idea the way they didn't comprehend the earth not being flat in those days..
Allah SWT played with conventional words like madadnaha(spread/stretch) to give the notion of it's flatness common in that time,
but He also played word riddles like da77aha(ostrich egg) to give a possibility of a different interpretation..

that interpretation only now we understood for certainty after taking a snapshot from out of space..

what i'm getting at is this
why the complication of different words to mean the same thing, unless it wasn't intended to mean the same thing in the first place, such as
mawlood, zawj, ba3l to point to the notion of husband?? or maybe they are specific terms for specific purposes with specific paradigms..
etc.etc.etc.

i hope i got my point across..
i think we're into something, right?

wallahua3lam
peace

I hope that which we're onto will either be the truth or lead to it

I think part of people's understandings of the various words have contributed to the varying interpretations

So if any of you could summarise what you have come up with /concluded/unresolved, that would be nice

Salam Sarah

I did do this a few pages back but some stuff has been added so I'l do another one but i'l start a thread and put a link to redirect to this thread if it's going to be discussed. That way the summary will always be without it being lost in many pages of discussion and it can be discussed on this thread.