Understanding zina
-
I think the concepts that are being dealt with here must be analyzed. There are ways to arrive at a conceptual definition using literature itself and the usage of the word (thats how dictionaries are formed, they describe the concept). I see no reason we can't arrive at a conceptual definition of marriage and zina by using the Quran. Merely saying that the Quran prohibts Zina and only allows relations with people we are married to is not enough, because then it boils down to what exactly is marriage? The concept you will find in the dictionary will be the concept as connected with british (english) culture/religion. That is how they define marriage, and so their dictionaries state it as thus. A different concept would be the "institution of marriage" as specified by Socrates in the Republic. The concept here is not an institution of contracts or arranged marriages etc., to Socrates and his people, marriage simpling meant 'mating'. WHen Socrates mentions that the state makes life possible by establishing and protecting the institution of marriage, he means exactly that. The state establishes laws to protect both partners who have decided to 'mate' (remember the greek conceptual definition of marriage is simpy 'mating'). This is nothing to do with contracts, or ritualistic marriages, rather, it only declares as legal the process of human pairbonding. Humans find their own mates just like other animals, I think the Quran is somewhere along this line. A couple that has mated is "married" in effect, as marriage does not mean the same thing here as it does in english (christian definition). Allah has installed certain protections for the woman, such as ujoor, farida etc., and divorce is simply breaking up, but with the time limitation to protect any children that may come out of the relationship. Some argue that paying a woman who is in a relationship with you is prostitution, but Dr. Tatiania (http//www.drtatiana.com/) has a different point of view. In her research, she found that many animals use some sort of gifts in exchange for sex, especially the human female. Upon receiving money/gifts, the effect on human females is one of arousal. Although not all women are like this, this discovery is not startling considering the responsibilities placed on the man by Allah. They were there for a reason. (to the be the protectors and maintainers of women), and the ujoor could possibly be wages not dowry, as that would probably keep the relationship going. The woman likes getting gifts/money, and the man respects more what he pays for, otherwise the same problem happens that happens in the western countries, high promiscuity rate, and high divorce rate. I suppose there is some logic to paying your mate after all.
-
Peace all
This is indeed an interesting topic, especially when examining the subtleties of relationships and what constitutes "marriage."
Elke, so sorry about all you've been through. I think your situation is quite different from sham's, who seems to be testing the relationship waters, so to speak It's a different mind set. You seem to have already made a commitment before God and others, which is lacking only a non-religious contract. It is one thing to be hedging on a commitment but still wanting to have sex...and another to be in a situation where you are, for all intents and purposes, already married to the second man.
The people who refuse to grant you your rights are violating Islamic law, are they not? After four months, you are supposed to reconcile or be set free in a dignified way. So abiding by a law that is in confict with The Quran seems irrelevant, since you were well past the four-month waiting period after leaving the first husband.
Which brings up an interesting point that zach made about the concept of marriage? Does it have to be recognized by any country's court system? Or could people follow what is stated in The Quran. Couldn't the dowry be paid, vows of commitment expressed in front of witnesses and the union of the couple be recognized as a valid marriage before God?
Oh, one side note, backtracking to something said earlier in this thread...in NC, it is actually illegal for unmarried people to have sex. It's a misdemeanor, and a woman here recently lost her job with the local police department because she lived with her boyfriend. The man who fired her said he wouldn't arrest her, but he couldn't have anyone who was knowingly committing a crime working in a law enforcement office.
-
Elke, so sorry about all you've been through. I think your situation is quite different from sham's, who seems to be testing the relationship waters, so to speak It's a different mind set.
dear sytalls,
I never mentioned in any of my post that I have gf or in any sort of relation. It was Tanveer who said I'm having a sexual relation with ma gf and thus commiting Zina. I hope he did it without knowing as he seems to be quite hyped up. It is possible that human makes mistake in such hype mood.
Anyway, imagine ppl like you and others who will take it as true and think that I have a gf and having sex. This is how False Hadith are spread even without knowing the truth.
Well, I have different thought and In my view sexual relation is fine within true lovers. It depends on both party, either they have reached that level of trust to share their body. But who am I to judge their intensions?
the way I see a relation is that, 2 person loves each other, both side parents are aware of the relation, even friends are aware of it. So where is glitch? If anyone cheats on the other than there is court to protect their rights and obviously witnesses are their.
Well one might ask what if witnesses lie? Well this lying can happen even when 2 ppl are institutionally married.
I am not against the paper work. Moreover I think its a good thing to have evidence in hard copy. But everything is possible in this world and a paper work can?t give the ultimate protection. Thats why I emphasize more on emotional binding rather than institutional drama, So that ppl get in relation because they are in love.
Does the state owns a citizen?s body? Than how can the state run verdict on whom he/she is sharing his/her body with? State can only act when there is a violation of anyone?s right.
these are just my opinion...
Peace
-
I think the concepts that are being dealt with here must be analyzed. There are ways to arrive at a conceptual definition using literature itself and the usage of the word (thats how dictionaries are formed, they describe the concept). I see no reason we can't arrive at a conceptual definition of marriage and zina by using the Quran. Merely saying that the Quran prohibts Zina and only allows relations with people we are married to is not enough, because then it boils down to what exactly is marriage? The concept you will find in the dictionary will be the concept as connected with british (english) culture/religion. That is how they define marriage, and so their dictionaries state it as thus. A different concept would be the "institution of marriage" as specified by Socrates in the Republic. The concept here is not an institution of contracts or arranged marriages etc., to Socrates and his people, marriage simpling meant 'mating'. WHen Socrates mentions that the state makes life possible by establishing and protecting the institution of marriage, he means exactly that. The state establishes laws to protect both partners who have decided to 'mate' (remember the greek conceptual definition of marriage is simpy 'mating'). This is nothing to do with contracts, or ritualistic marriages, rather, it only declares as legal the process of human pairbonding. Humans find their own mates just like other animals, I think the Quran is somewhere along this line. A couple that has mated is "married" in effect, as marriage does not mean the same thing here as it does in english (christian definition). Allah has installed certain protections for the woman, such as ujoor, farida etc., and divorce is simply breaking up, but with the time limitation to protect any children that may come out of the relationship. Some argue that paying a woman who is in a relationship with you is prostitution, but Dr. Tatiania (http//www.drtatiana.com/) has a different point of view. In her research, she found that many animals use some sort of gifts in exchange for sex, especially the human female. Upon receiving money/gifts, the effect on human females is one of arousal. Although not all women are like this, this discovery is not startling considering the responsibilities placed on the man by Allah. They were there for a reason. (to the be the protectors and maintainers of women), and the ujoor could possibly be wages not dowry, as that would probably keep the relationship going. The woman likes getting gifts/money, and the man respects more what he pays for, otherwise the same problem happens that happens in the western countries, high promiscuity rate, and high divorce rate. I suppose there is some logic to paying your mate after all.
Great explanation! This is something interesting that I believe not only me getting a useful knowledge...I'm happy that this discussion is getting more serious and people giving out their opinion seriously....
-
Peace,
And yeah...Just wanna add something for our discussion...Ok, I agree with brother Sham when he said that marriage should be more about emotional involvement. Ok, as example in some places, the marriage between 2 person is decided by their parents (I mean the parents will decide who is the one who will be marrying their daughter)..and in some cases...both of them never love each other or already have someone else in their heart but at the same time, they simply can't argue with their parents..and they get married..and yeah...from the traditional view..they are now a legal husband and wife, they have the "document" to prove that they are now married... but is that true meaning of marriage? or is this a fornication?So, emotional involvement is the most important thing not the document of agreement that need to be signed....ok, the other thing is..think about 1000 years ago or the time where our Prophet live...There is a husband and wife live in Madinah...they later migrated to some other places where most of the people are muslim (I believe they don't have "supporting documents" as we are having now to prove that they were both married...)..So, how are people going to know that they were both married?So basically, this means that marriage is more about the agreement between two person and it doesn't matter whether people know about it or not....
-
I was wondering what you guys think of people that don't know the quran but still believe in god and do good, but are having sex before marriage, are they not on the right path according to quran even though their not intentionally disobeying god because they don't know otherwise?
-
Peace all,
2234 And there is no sin upon you if you openly propose marriage to these women, or you keep it between yourselves. God knows that you will be thinking of them, but do not meet them secretly, unless you have something righteous to say.the one above should be 2235 not 2234
-
Kb2531, i think that if someone has sex, that is considered "marriage" in a Quranic sense. Whether or not the couple follow the Quran, if as you said they are good people who believe in God, most probably they will be taking care of each other, and the man will especially taking care of the woman. Its nothing to do with religion, but a natural human response to care for their mate. Conceptually defining marriage, there are no contracts etc., marriage is only a legal union between man and woman, and what is legal by QUranic standards is if ujoor has been paid. ANd i guess a woman will also not get together with a man if he cannot pay the ujoor, unless she states she does not want it and remits it to him, which is also her Quranic right. She will also want that sort of protection. So it is just pairbonding really. Zina conceptually probably refers to rape and adultery, as fornication does not exist if marriage refers to sexual intercouse. So if a woman gets together with a man just for financial protection rather than an emotional tie, that it acceptable, and if the man refuses to pay what they agreed upon, or what she considered was fair, it is probaby zina, as he used her without fulfilling his part of the bargain, and she did not remit it to him, so its "illicit sex" or rape, because her reason for being with him was financial protection. And in a society where regulations are Quranically derived, she can leave anytime she wants.
-
Dear Shams,
I am sorry for my misunderstanding. I mistakenly thought that your post implied that you had a g/f. You are right, I got a little hyped up and would like to offer you a public apology for my mistake.
Sincerely,
Tanveer
-
Peace Sham...and my sincerest apology. You're absolutely right. I did jump to conclusions based on what you said in your original post.
As to "people like me" spreading false hadith, I've never read them. I refused to after I converted to Islam. And, if this discussion had taken place in "real life," I wouldn't have gossiped about you elsewhere...that being outside of where opinions on this subject were being shared or where you were not included.
Maybe it will help to know my perspective on this issue. Because it wasn't Tanveer who influenced my opinion...I just happened to agree with him.
I know a great many people who bend the rules to suit their desires and find justifications for their actions. I have definitely done the same in the past. My actions weren't any more right under Christianity than under Islam, but somehow I made them out to be okay in my own mind.
This is an issue I struggled with when I chose to become a Muslim. I've never wanted to get married, and I never have. Even though my relationships were monogomous, I never met anyone I considered spending a lifetime with, i.e., I never made a full commitment.
But when I became Muslim, I had to look more closely at my motives and my actions. Either I surrendered and followed the best course of action or I continued with my old ways. From what I see in The Quran, marriage isn't something that happens because we say, "okay, we're having sex with each other, so we'll call that being married." Marriage is a full out commitment that goes beyond simply being boyfriend and girlfriend or sleeping with each other.
By definition, marriage involves some sort of ceremony and binding contract between two people, who recognize they are forming a union. It requies a contract and a willingness to make a full investment in the relationship. Unlike others here, I don't think love is even a requirement, because it can come later. There are people who have married out of mutual need--in the recent past, for example, often a man wanted someone to care for his home and have children while the woman wanted a provider and to have children. In making the commitment, the two people formed a bond that often (though not always by any means) grew into mutual love and respect.
In watching friends get married and divorced over the years, I've noticed that the people who worked at making their marriage (their contract) a success were the ones who had healthy partnerships. Often, these people fell out of love with each other, then back in love, then out, then in again...and so on...but they respected their commitment and each other, so they had satisfying and successful marriages.
Those who relied solely on feelings, didn't have much respect for their commitments. They put more emphasis on emotions than on their partnership. I know people who've been married 3 or 4 times (legally) and still don't have a clue what a successful marriage is.
I also have two friends who had a very strong commitment, even bought a house together, but the woman had a terrible first marriage and didn't want to do it again. This couple lived together for seven years, at which time their untion was automatically recognized as a "common law marriage" by the state. After ten years of being together, they finally signed all the legal documents and got married by the rules. That's because they realized they are approaching a time when there may be legal matter such as social security benefits, wills, custodial care issues, etc. that they will have to deal with. But their commitment is no less or no more because of the legal documents.
So there are all types of commitments and circumstances. But here's the danger in declaring any relationship to be marriage by virtue of having sex together--the giddy feelings of early love (and often of infatuation only) fade away. In marriage, the commitment remains and the partnership continues with a deeper bond forming over the years. If the two people are right and good for each other. If not, a piece of paper won't help and no amount of time together will make the relationship work.
Regardless...without some sort of official agreement, I don't see how you can call a relationship "marriage." Without that agreement, it's way too easy to avoid full investment in the relationship. Because I don't know about the rest of you, but I sure wouldn't go into a long-term business relationship with someone without some sort of contract!
So those are the reasons for my views from a practical standpoint. And, again, my apologies for misunderstanding what you said and jumping to the wrong conclusions.
-
Salaam all,
I agree with Sytalls that marriage is a binding/firm contract or a solemn/strong covenant (meethaqan ghaleezan)
421 And if you wish to replace one wife instead of another, and you have given one of them a large amount, then do not take anything from it. Would you take it by falsehood while it is clearly a sin?
422 And how can you take it when you have become intimate with each other, and the women have taken from you a strong covenant.i think that if someone has sex, that is considered "marriage" in a Quranic sense.
That is not what the Quran says. Quran talks about consummation of marriage (sexual intercourse) AFTER the marriage contract and AFTER giving the ujoor
2234 And there is no sin upon you if you openly propose marriage to these women, or you keep it between yourselves. God knows that you will be thinking of them, but do not meet them secretly, unless you have something righteous to say. And do not consummate the marriage until the required interim is reached in the Scripture.
2235 There is no sin upon you if you divorce the women before having sexual intercourse with them, or before committing to what was agreed for them.
2236 And if you divorce them before having sexual intercourse with them, but you have already agreed to the dowry; then you must give half of what you have agreed, unless they forgive or the guardian over the marriage contract forgives.
3350 O you who believe, if you marry the believing women, then divorced them before having intercourse with them, then there is no interim required of them.First is marriage, then giving the dowry, then consummation.
Conceptually defining marriage, there are no contracts etc., marriage is only a legal union between man and woman, and what is legal by QUranic standards is if ujoor has been paid.
Wrong again. Marriage is a binding contract, including defining how much ujoor, and then giving the ujoor AFTER marriage. For example, divorce can happen AFTER marriage but BEFORE ujoor is paid. (2235, 236).
Zina conceptually probably refers to rape and adultery, as fornication does not exist if marriage refers to sexual intercouse.
As marriage does not refer to sexual intercourse, so fornication DOES exist and the above definition of "zina" is wrong.
And in a society where regulations are Quranically derived, she can leave anytime she wants.
Quran does not say that. She cannot leave anytime she wants but only after she has gone through a divorce in front of witnesses after waiting 4 months and fulfilling the interim
2230 And if you have divorced the women, and they have reached their required interim period, then either you remain together equitably, or part ways equitably.
653 Then, once the interim is fulfilled, either you remain together equitably, or part ways equitably and have it witnessed by two just people from among you; and give the testimony for God.One should not twist The God's words and ascribe to The God what He does not say i.e. invent lies about The God.
16117 And do not say regarding what your tongues describe with lies "This is lawful and that is forbidden;" that you seek to invent lies about God. Those who invent lies about God will not succeed.
-
Dear ZS,
I am following the verse numbering according to the Warsh version of the Quran, which the pm translation has adopted. Please see the following for details
http//free-minds.org/articles/science/WhichQuran.pdf
-
tanveermd,
concerning what you wrote about the following verses
"421 And if you wish to replace one wife instead of another, and you have given one of them a large amount, then do not take anything from it. Would you take it by falsehood while it is clearly a sin?
422 And how can you take it when you have become intimate with each other, and the women have taken from you a strong covenant. "You're right. A covenant is required (agreement), which is what i stated earlier about agreeing upon the ujoor, but I'm sorry, there is no written contract here, and so this goes back to Shams' point, that coming together is an agreement too. There is no formal, physical contract required that has to be signed infront of witnesses.
"2234 And there is no sin upon you if you openly propose marriage to these women, or you keep it between yourselves. God knows that you will be thinking of them, but do not meet them secretly, unless you have something righteous to say. And do not consummate the marriage until the required interim is reached in the Scripture.
2235 There is no sin upon you if you divorce the women before having sexual intercourse with them, or before committing to what was agreed for them.
2236 And if you divorce them before having sexual intercourse with them, but you have already agreed to the dowry; then you must give half of what you have agreed, unless they forgive or the guardian over the marriage contract forgives.
3350 O you who believe, if you marry the believing women, then divorced them before having intercourse with them, then there is no interim required of them. "These verses are concerning widowed women
"2233 And for those of you who pass away and leave widows behind, then their widows will have a required interim period of four months and ten days. So when they reach their required interim, then there is no sin upon you for what they do to themselves equitably. And God is Expert to what you do." - This verse comes right before the verses you quoted.You also state "
First is marriage, then giving the dowry, then consummation. "I agree with you about consummation, thats why i said that marriage is after someone has intercourse as the word consummation itself means "fulfillment" or "achieving a goal". But, consider the following verse
"425 And the already married from the women, except those who become widowed; God's scripture is over you; and permitted for you is what is beyond this, if you are seeking with your money to be protected and not for illicit sex. As for those whom you have already had joy with them, then you shall give them their wage as an obligation. There is no sin upon you for what you agree to after the obligation. God is Knowledgeable, Wise."
So you can give dowry after "enjoying" a woman. And the wages become incumbment upon you. So according to this, if you have intercourse with a woman, all that is required of you is to pay her wage, so there is no fornication as long as you pay the wage, and if you don't pay the wage, and you've already agreed to it, then it is "zina" as i stated before. If she says that she does not require the wage, and she remits it to you, then it is not fornication, and both parties have the ability to decided upon their future. (although after this the woman does have a waiting period)
And about the woman leaving when she wants
you quoted these verses
"2230 And if you have divorced the women, and they have reached their required interim period, then either you remain together equitably, or part ways equitably.
653 Then, once the interim is fulfilled, either you remain together equitably, or part ways equitably and have it witnessed by two just people from among you; and give the testimony for God. "By these verses, you said she cannot leave when she wants, when these verses both state that she is merely the partner of the man until her interim period is finished. That means that she cannot have relations with another man until the interim is finished, nor can she be kicked out of the house (as per 652). No one is holding her hostage, she is a free person and may leave anytime she wants, but she may not have relations with any other man until the interim period is complete and the dissolution of the bond is complete. (in other words, they break up, and she has to wait a certain period in case she's pregnant, and if she is, they know who the father is, and who's responsibility the care of the child is).
At the end of your message you wrote
"One should not twist The God's words and ascribe to The God what He does not say i.e. invent lies about The God.
16117 And do not say regarding what your tongues describe with lies "This is lawful and that is forbidden;" that you seek to invent lies about God. Those who invent lies about God will not succeed."
Who invented a lie about God?? Tell me his name and where he lives, i'll sort him out.
I think no one on this forum is trying to lie, or invent things about God. We are all having problems understanding each other because of concepts that have not been properly defined for us for the past 1000 years. The problem isn't even that of interpretation, but the definitions of these concepts that mean different things to Quran readers of different cultures, languages, upbringing. Anyone who has ever taken courses on modes of reasoning or philosophy will understand the importance of language, and how logical errors can be committed when a concept is not clearly defined. I'm sure we will all reach similar conclusions once several concepts in the Quran are clearly defined using the Quran itself.
-
Dear Shams,
I am sorry for my misunderstanding. I mistakenly thought that your post implied that you had a g/f. You are right, I got a little hyped up and would like to offer you a public apology for my mistake.
Sincerely,
Tanveer
Its ok brother,
your apology is accepted..)
peace
-
Peace Sham...and my sincerest apology. You're absolutely right. I did jump to conclusions based on what you said in your original post.
As to "people like me" spreading false hadith, I've never read them. I refused to after I converted to Islam. And, if this discussion had taken place in "real life," I wouldn't have gossiped about you elsewhere...that being outside of where opinions on this subject were being shared or where you were not included.
Its ok sytalls,
I never said you are creating false hadith intentionally but I just pointed out the invisible mechanism which takes place even without knowing that we are creating a false hadith. It happens when we are less careful or rushing towards something. But its not intentionally done.
peace to u
-
Peace all
First...I think these numbers are off by one...that they should be 2235 through 2237.
"2234 And there is no sin upon you if you openly propose marriage to these women, or you keep it between yourselves. God knows that you will be thinking of them, but do not meet them secretly, unless you have something righteous to say. And do not consummate the marriage until the required interim is reached in the Scripture.
2235 There is no sin upon you if you divorce the women before having sexual intercourse with them, or before committing to what was agreed for them.
2236 And if you divorce them before having sexual intercourse with them, but you have already agreed to the dowry; then you must give half of what you have agreed, unless they forgive or the guardian over the marriage contract forgives.But as to the issue itself, zach. If you look at 2234--that is talking about "proposing marriage," which is not the same as "getting married." This relates only to asking the woman to get married. It only allows that getting engaged or betrothed can be done privately, probably because it is an intimate, tender and romantic moment shared by two people...and also potentially embarassing if someone says "no."
Then right there...in 236 above, you can see that it clearly says "the guardian over the marriage contract." That seems to indicate there is someone (besides either the man or woman) who is watching over the marriage contract.
Which applies to what Tanveer was saying about binding contracts and contradicts what you said about ujoor being the only way to define the union
Conceptually defining marriage, there are no contracts etc., marriage is only a legal union Conceptually defining marriage, there are no contracts etc., marriage is only a legal union between man and woman, and what is legal by QUranic standards is if ujoor has been paid.
If this idea of marriage doesn't involve some sort of legal contact/covenant, then why bother to discuss marriage at all? If The Quran wanted to outline relationships between men and women, then why not just skip any mention of marriages and talk about couples in general terms?
And know this...I would love to think I could enter into a sexual relationship with someone and call that "marriage" for as long as the relationhip lasted. Especially if all the guy had to do was give me ujoor. I get a gift and a boyfriend, without any thought of a lasting commitment. But that's just not following the best of ways outlined in The Quran.
While I have a career and independence, not having a legal marriage isn't fair for many women. Many would not have any security for their future without a legal contract and would not enjoy their rightfully recognized status as a wife. In many places in the US, without a valid marriage contract, the children of an unmarried couple have no legal right to their father's name (even though he can still be forced to pay for support), unless the father officially adopts them...in which case, the mother's rights change.
I think there is something to be said for that age-old question of "Why buy the cow when the milk is free?" Marriage requires an investment (not just financially but emotionally and legally) in a relationship.
Even in my past days of "indiscretion" and even not wanting to be married, I still recognized that my place in a man's life as his girlfriend was definitely not the same as it would be as his wife...or his place as a boyfriend vs. a husband.
-
Its ok sytalls,
I never said you are creating false hadith intentionally but I just pointed out the invisible mechanism which takes place even without knowing that we are creating a false hadith. It happens when we are less careful or rushing towards something. But its not intentionally done.
peace to u
Thanks and peace to you, also, sham.
You are so right about that invisible mechanism!
Here's something interesting about our exchange that may be worth sharing here (although a bit off topic for this thread). A short time before reading your post, I opened The Quran to the sura in which David was tested by the two "shepherds" coming into his bedroom in the middle of the night. I read through it and thought about it, but only in relation to other things.
Then I come wandering on here soon after, and I spot your post. oops It didn't take long to make the connection. Some days, the best prayer for me is "God save me from myself."
Although I still have strong opinions about marriage, thanks to a reminder from God through The Quran and thanks to your comments, I've now climbed down from my lofty judging perch, where I could so clearly see your non-existent girlfriend. But please feel free to remind me if you see me standing up there again. That is far preferable to having the matter come up on Judgment Day.
-
Sytalls,
If this idea of marriage doesn't involve some sort of legal contact/covenant, then why bother to discuss marriage at all? If The Quran wanted to outline relationships between men and women, then why not just skip any mention of marriages and talk about couples in general terms?
And know this...I would love to think I could enter into a sexual relationship with someone and call that "marriage" for as long as the relationhip lasted. Especially if all the guy had to do was give me ujoor. I get a gift and a boyfriend, without any thought of a lasting commitment. But that's just not following the best of ways outlined in The Quran.
I think there is a misunderstanding here. There is a legal aspect to human coupling, and that is why it is discussed in the Quran. The legal aspect is the duty of the males as outlined in the Quran, otherwise, one would get a society such as found in North America with women getting pregnant, alone, having to support themselves, having a rough life. When I say that we should think about a new concept when talking about marriage i'm not trying to compare it to the boyfriend/girlfriend situation nowadays, i'm talking about something that doesn't exist right now. And what is marriage nowadays anyway? You enter into a sexual relationship, you get a gift, and there is a committment. The Quran legally regulates human coupling. So when a man and woman come together, the man cannot get her pregant and suddenly abandon her as is commonly done in north america/europe. There are consequences. I don't know where you came up with the idea that there is no lasting committment. The committment between two people is in their feelings, not a piece of paper. Making sure that they are protected from the consequences of those feelings is the duty of the law. Laws have been put into place in north america/europe protecting women married or unmarried because of the very reason that at first a bond outside of "marriage" was not recognized at all under the law. The Quran allows for the security and upbringing of the child, and its association with the father.
While I have a career and independence, not having a legal marriage isn't fair for many women. Many would not have any security for their future without a legal contract and would not enjoy their rightfully recognized status as a wife. In many places in the US, without a valid marriage contract, the children of an unmarried couple have no legal right to their father's name (even though he can still be forced to pay for support), unless the father officially adopts them...in which case, the mother's rights change.
I think there is something to be said for that age-old question of "Why buy the cow when the milk is free?" Marriage requires an investment (not just financially but emotionally and legally) in a relationship.
Even in my past days of "indiscretion" and even not wanting to be married, I still recognized that my place in a man's life as his girlfriend was definitely not the same as it would be as his wife...or his place as a boyfriend vs. a husband.
You're right. But I'm not talking about the boyfriend/girlfriend scene. There is little security for a girlfriend in todays world, but on the flip side, due to marriage contracts and traditional views of marriage, many woman are oppressed. I know of at least 48 cases in the past year in my city alone where the woman's life was made into a living hell, and she could not escape it. So there is something in two free people coming together. But the Quranic view of marriage is somewhere in between these two extremes. But to keep the state out of the affairs of two people, to maintain their freedome, yet protect them both, there are laws put into place that have to be followed by both. This is what i've been trying to say is marriage. We cannot say that because one marriage works under the traditional view, that all will work. There is a reason why people have started to rebel against the old ways of thinking. One cannot force things upon a person. There was an anonymous survey done at my university, which holds a muslim student population of 5000 and above. It dealt with promiscuity and the surveyers divided the results along ethnicities and religions. 55% of the muslim students were promiscuos and 40% of them had had at least 2 partners so far. So the old system is crumbling, and I'm sure if there was any good in that system, it wouldnt have crumbled. God would not have designed a system that would eventually crumble. So there has to be some sort of structure where both parties have an advantage to becoming a couple, and both are as free as when they went in. THe advantage of course to the female is financial protection, physical protection. THe advantage of the male is that he gets children, and they are raised in the environment that is fostered by the two, and by his partner, the male gets 'enjoyment'.
You also mentioned that i said something about ujoor being the only way to define union? Union is when they come together, ujoor is simple a legal duty incumbent on a man, as per 425. So the real issue here is now finding something that works that has an obvious advantage in it, such as the process in the Quran.
-
peace tanveermd
Dear ZS,
I am following the verse numbering according to the Warsh version of the Quran, which the pm translation has adopted. Please see the following for details
http//free-minds.org/articles/science/WhichQuran.pdf
So is it supposed to be off by one?
check this out..
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3687