witnesses for nikah
-
I posted the verses a few times, recently in this thread, shown below
source
What does The Quran say on the age of marriage?
The Quran does not state a specific legal age of marriage, however it does give a guideline and mentions situations and conditions that should be considered before marriage
Determining mutual attraction/compatibility
Ascertaining whether the potential partner is of similar beliefs/faith
Discussion of and agreeing to the level of dower and other terms (if any)
Understanding and mutual acceptance of marriage as a solemn/strong oath/contract
If male, capable of providing for the family/household
To have physically matured / post-puberty
To have the marriage contract/oaths witnessedIf the marriage is unsuccessful, one should also be capable of undertaking divorce proceedings, e.g. separation period, arbitration, discussion of settlement etc .
2237 automatically assumes by default there is the following in place "...or forgoes the one in whose hands is the knot/contract of the marriage..."
652 tells us two witnesses are required upon finalised divorce (ergo, would it make sense for there to be no witness requirement for initiation of marriage?)
44 and 424 discuss potential couple agreeing to level of dower and other terms (if any). It would be wise to record the final agreement, and have this witnessed.
e.g. 2282 discuss having witnesses in financial transactions involving timeframes
421 states marriage as a strong/solemn/serious oath/contract and 2433 discusses writing/documenting the change in status from mma to married (or independent, as some translate it).Thus, the evidence is weighted in favour of having a marriage contract, and having it witnessed.
-
652 tells us two witnesses are required upon finalised divorce (ergo, would it make sense for there to be no witness requirement for initiation of marriage?)
Maybe because God does not want to make marriage (sex) contingent on the existence of witnesses.
Because all those things that are mentionned are convenient arrangements to make marriage as problem free as possile, but again, those are arangements or riquired that make things easir specially in the face of crooks, but they are not marriage.
The mithaq ghalith us as per 4.21
How shall you take it, when each of you has been privily with the other, and they (feminine) have taken from you a solemn compact (mithaq ghaliTH)? (21)
Salaam
-
peace,
Maybe because God does not want to make marriage (sex) contingent on the existence of witnesses.
But then one could argue why does God make finalised divorce contingent on the existence of witnesses? What would be your response to that? (i.e. can you provide a logical/practical reason why it is required for one and not the other). I cant think of any good reason, and other verses, e.g. 2237, add weight to the view of contract/witness.
-
4.21 speaks of the mithaq ghalith, wihout that there is no marriage. in fact that is the marriage, the mithaq ghalith
How shall you take it, when each of you has been privily with the other, and they (feminine) have taken from you a solemn compact (mithaq ghaliTH)? (21)
Do you rezlly want two witnesses for that? Why not four?
On the other hand, divorce is non marriage, it is no mithaq ghalith ut the end of the mithaq ghalith. What can you witness there, only what those who want to undo the marriage express as their will.
And marriage is not the expression of a will but the act of the mithaq ghalith wich is in privacy. Divorce does not require privacy. because divorce is doing nothing. Although there are all the legal questions derived from the marriage, like children, which by the way, no amount of witnesses or signatures can bring them about, but the mitahq ghalith in privacy can.
The mithaq ghalith is God given, papers and witnesses are safeguards for people not the essence or gist or the necessary for the mithaq ghalith to exist, jut safeguards to prvent lies and abuses.
Salaam
-
Thank you, reel.
So I get the distinct impression that marriage is not the same thing as the requirements for marriage and that the requirements for marriage or rather not requirements in general, but the engagements which should or may accompany marriage such as ujur and any other conditions the parties may set are no different from any other dealings Better make them clear, written and witnessed so that you do not have to get into disputes later. What are usual safeguards for any human civilised dealings, however those are not what constitute marriage.
And funnily the second aya you quote deals with divorce not with marriage. And that is another dealing which may be the source of much quarreling and disagreement.
Reminds me of anciente Egypt, where there was no ceremony for marriage, but when two people had sexual relations the were considered married to eah other. That is it was a de facto marriage, Not any formal appearance. And is people already married had relations and the partner was not the spouse, they were in adultery and therefore liable to being pursued by the spouse.
Of course as parallel agreement to the de facto marriage, they could engage in any contractual agreements they chose, and of course those should be done with all the formal requirements. I guess the savings in
banquets, celebrations and bureaucracy were considerable.Law today, I think in most countries, acknowledges de facto marriages, people who live as married but have never done anything official about it, and the law on married people applies to them, for instance, if they were to part ways, the law ond divorce would apply to them. I think in English they call it common law marriage.
Salaam
You're welcome.
Your interpretation of marriage is not incorrect though. Consummation is required in majority of the cultures to legalize the marriage. We have that in the west also.
Peace
-
peace huruf,
I'm not entirely sure what you're saying.
-
You seem to be saying on the one hand marriage is "strong/serious compact/oath" yet on the other hand doesn't require any contract, witnesses, safeguards etc and other things (debt, divorce, wills, manumission) do.
-
you dont address all the verses
-
if you are claiming marriage is legal when sex takes place, then this is disproved by 2236 because it talks about divorce/talaq when no sex has taken place, i.e. this same word talaq/divorce is used for dissolving marriage in Quran whether sex has taken place or not. Quran doesn't differentiate.
-
also you claim "divorce is nothing" when Quran goes into great detail about it, and even gets the community/authority involved at times to ensure matters are dealt with correctly.
Perhaps you can clarify your view.
-
-
peace huruf,
I'm not entirely sure what you're saying.
-
You seem to be saying on the one hand marriage is "strong/serious compact/oath" yet on the other hand doesn't require any contract, witnesses, safeguards etc and other things (debt, divorce, wills, manumission) do.
-
you dont address all the verses
-
if you are claiming marriage is legal when sex takes place, then this is disproved by 2236 because it talks about divorce/talaq when no sex has taken place, i.e. this same word talaq/divorce is used for dissolving marriage in Quran whether sex has taken place or not. Quran doesn't differentiate.
-
also you claim "divorce is nothing" when Quran goes into great detail about it, and even gets the community/authority involved at times to ensure matters are dealt with correctly.
Perhaps you can clarify your view.
I think it is quite clear. Marriage without all those burocratic, legal conviences would still be marriage.
See about ancient Egypt. It went on for several thousand years so it must not be so incomprehensible.
Have you seen any document of a celebration of a marriage, any depcition of any ceremony of mariage of ancient Egypt? Surely we have seen thousands of pictures and statues of couples and families, but no marriage acts or ceremonies.
And again today there is such a thing. I have a couple of very good friends who did not go through any paper or official procedure. And they have been married over twenty years.So yes, of course, sure marriage is not the safeguards or procedures followed to register it or make it known, mariage is by itself.
Animals have marriages which last all life and even beyond in some species. So what is so shocking about persons succeeding at it too.
As to divorce you did not get what I mean. Divorce is a formality to end a marriage, but whereas marriage you do something, you have sexual relations as marriage, when you divorce you do nothing, you don't have sexual relations, simply sexual relations stop. Other things may stop as well, but those would not be exclusive of marriage. I think it is clear.
What Qur'an does is provide all kinds of safeguards so that nobody is oppressed through marriage or divorce not so that marriage, a God given relationship and source of new life, is replaced by the accessories to marriage appoint to give marriage some guaranties.
2.236. Of course there has been no marriage. There have been arrangements contingent upon marriage taking place. The talaq means divorce if there has been a marriage, but since no mariage has taken place what it happens is that since other arrangmeents are taken in view of marriage the person is freed from all those. Talaqa is not exclusively divorce it means to free, let go.
As to marriage being legal or not, that is not a question of God, but a question of the laws people want to apply for themselves.
The mithaq ghalith is yes precisely those relations that allow new life to come into being not any paper. Papers do not get women pregnant nor witnessess do.
Salaam
-
-
You presented no Quranic evidence.
Quran clearly uses the word "talaq" regardless of consummation. Anyone can check it for themselves
http//corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=2&verse=236#(22361)And lastly, if I have understood you correctly, you seem to be saying "mithaq ghalith" means "sex". Well, not only is that an awkward fit into 421, but Quran also uses this phrase elsewhere and it never means sex.
With all due respect, until further evidence is brought, your argument is not credible.
Peace out.
-
Salaam huruf
We are social animals and live in cultures and societies. Every society had developed their standards through learning curves.
Common law marriage is a contract between two individuals, verbal or formal. Sex is part of marriage between a man and a women. In the west common law marriage is practiced but don't forget that these societies have very strong laws which are implemented in the case of marriage and divorce situations whether formal or common law. In the absence of these strict laws common law or a formal marriage is open for abuse.
In mulim culture a marriage is a contract and subject to satisfaction of all conditions of a contract. It could be done verbally or written/registered but there is a need for witnesses to settle any potential problems in the future.
As Wakas has pointed out Mithaq ghaliz does not mean sex...It was taken from prophets as well. So regular registered marriage or common law marriage both are regulated by the law of the land.
-
Yes, it was I who said that the mithaq ghalith God took from the prophets, obviously it was not sex in this case, or not what we understand by sex, but between man and woman, it is sex. It is God given and the way that new life comes into being, can you think of a mithaq more ghalith than that?
You keep confusing the accessories with the essence. And I have myself said, that all the documents and witnesses and ceremonies are there to safeguard those who marry and may be not taken seriously, but still the marriage is not that, no amount of that will bring new life, in the same way that many muslims consider that homosexual mariage is a mock, why if they undergo all the ccesories to marriage? no new life will come from it. But if it is a matter of papers and witnessess, marriage, no matter the sex of the parties whould be good all right, or not?
You have to consider that in spite of laws, of any law, common marriage, common law marriage, even if there was not anything else, would still be a marriage. It is not laws that make marriage marriage, it is marriage itself that has made spring all the laws regardin it, for good or for bad.
I have already written about ancient Egyptians, how they did not have any ceremony or legal act for marriage to take place, but they acknowledged marriage and very thoroughly, by the way.
And humans are not the only ones who have cultures, animals do to and even there are species with evolved courting and matching behaviour. It is weird how plump and brutish some humans seem sometimes when compared with some animals.The safeguards are there because some or many humans tend to be crooks or to lose honour to self-interest easily, but God does not annule a marriage for the reason of there not being any accessory.
I know, I know many people here may be horrified that any sex relation, a one night stand and all that, may be consider equal to what they prepare for themselves in the way of ceremonies and papers so that they can fool around as much as they want but not be held responsible for it and only when they, the spoilt kids, feel like it will be mariage. They, not God, decree what is marriage and what is not. It will not be marriage when God says that it is a mithaq ghalith, but will be marriage and godly when it suits them only and they have managed to bring all the accessories to work to their advantage. But that is not faithfulness or real belief.
What is not mithaq ghalith is shirk, as plain as that, with papers or without. And such a thing may have been mithaq ghalith for one part and may be not for the other part. God knows. But this thing of only when I am serious about it is marriage is shirk. They may cheat themselves, God is not cheated.
Salaam
-
About the question of the witnesses and the papers and ll that, wakas, youhave made me think. Imagine
I agree with someone I trust to lend him or her some money, or to put some capital on aventure he or she trusts a lot and thinks will be profitable. I give the money, but oh, I am so stupid that I do nto sign a paper nor do I have witnesses. Was there no loean or no contribution of capital?
Of cours there was loan or contribution of capital, but I do not have any proof for the world.
You may say I am stupid, and I even agree with that, it is plain I was stupid, but you cannot say THERE WAS NO LOAN, NO AGREEMENT, NO CONTRIBUTION OF CAPITAL.
The money, the thing that makes the venture work (or not, it will depend) was there, handed.
If the person who got the money, on the other hand, is a decent person there will be no problem, she will behave according to what was agreed.
See what I mean, laws, civil laws, trade alws, whatever laws are there or should be there so that people can be protected from those who have no honour, but you cannot say that if there are no witnesses there is no loan, if there are no papers there is no loan. You may not be able to prove, but loan and money os there, and if the person is honourable, the loan was there but if the person is not honourable there was no loan? What a gift to scoundrels!
ON the other hand, if a new life does not prove something I do not know what does.
I supose we worship ourselves, if we do not mean to marry just waste some time, then it is not marriage, but if we want now really to have a nice married life than there is marriage. Where is God, and where is self-respect and and sincerity to God?
Long live ancient Egypt! They did know those people.
Salaam
