Understanding zina
-
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
-
Peace zachlipset,
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.
2236 clearly contradicts what you are saying
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.
As Sytalls pointed out there is clearly a guardian over the marriage contract which clearly shows that there has to be a witness, making it a formal, physical contract. As I said in my earlier post, one should not invent lies about The God.
These verses are concerning widowed women
First of all it does not matter if 2233 is about widows because the general subject is about divorce from 2225 onwards. Divorce after marrying a widow is the same as divorce after marrying a non-widow. 2234 is about widows because of the words "these women" and talks about proposing the widows and fulfilling the interim after becoming widow, before getting married. 2235 again talks about divorce in general, the same subject that started from 2225 onwards, which is clear from the words "the women"
2225 For those who are discontent with their wives, let them wait for four months. If they reconcile, then God is Forgiving, Most Merciful.
2226 And if they insist on the divorce, then God is Hearer, Knowledgeable.
2227 And the divorced women shall wait for three menstruation periods; and it is not lawful for them to conceal what God has created in their wombs, if they believe in God and the Last Day. And their husbands would then have just cause to return together, if they both wish to reconcile. And for what obligations the women are owed, so similarly must they fulfil their obligations. But the men will have a greater responsibility over them in this. And God is Noble, Wise.
2228 The divorce is allowed twice. So, either they remain together equitably, or they part ways with kindness. And it is not lawful for you to take back anything you have given the women unless you fear that they will not uphold God's limits. So if you fear that they will not uphold God's limits, then there is no sin upon them for what is given back. These are God's limits so do not transgress them. And whoever shall transgress God's limits, then these are the wicked.
2229 So if he divorces her again, then she will not be lawful for him until she has married another husband. If the other husband divorces her, then there is no sin that they come back together if they think they will uphold God's limits.These are God's limits, He clarifies them for a people that know.
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. And do not reconcile with them so you can harm them out of animosity; whoever does so is doing wickedness to his soul; and do not take God's revelations lightly. And remember God's blessings towards you, and what was sent down to you of the Scripture and the wisdom, He warns you with it. And be aware of God and know that God is Knowledgeable in all things.
2231 And if you divorce the women, and they have reached their required interim period, then do not prevent them from remarrying their husbands if they amicably agree amongst themselves out of what is best. This is to remind any of you who believe in God and the Last Day, this is better for you and purer; and God knows while you do not know.
2232 And the divorced mothers are allowed to suckle their children two full years, if they wish to complete the suckling. And the man for whom the child is born is responsible for both their provisions and clothing equitably. We do not burden a soul beyond its means. No mother shall be harmed because of her child, nor shall a father be harmed because of his child. And for the guardian is the same requirement. So if they wish to separate out of mutual agreement and council, then there is no sin upon them. And if you want to hire nursing mothers, then there is no sin upon you if you return what you have been given equitably. And be aware of God, and know that God is watching over what you do.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.
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. And know that God knows what is in your souls, so be aware of Him, and know that God is Forgiving, Compassionate.2233 and 2234 about widows and how to propose and marry them, 2235 back to divorcing the women
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. Let them have recompense, the rich according to his means, and the poor according to his means. Recompense which is in goodness, a responsibility for those in kindness.
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. And if you forgive, it is closer to righteousness. And do not forget the favour between you; God is Seer over what you do.Widows or non-widows is irrelevent to the point I was making. The point is that one can be married and not had intercourse yet, and is still considered married. That is obvious from the words "if you divorce them BEFORE having sexual intercourse. So the marriage contract, or the state of being married has nothing to do with sexual intercourse or consummation of marriage.
thats why i said that marriage is after someone has intercourse as the word consummation itself means "fulfillment" or "achieving a goal".
The underlined part of your statement is completely wrong and off the mark. Please see my point above. Marriage is AFTER the marriage contract, and not after sexual intercourse, so theoretically one could get married and never have sexual intercourse, but one is still considered married. Marriage is BEFORE sexual intercourse.
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.
Again complete presumption and conjecture in the underlined portion of your statement. I will reiterate one should not invent lies about The God. According to 421 and 422 there has to be a binding marriage contract before getting intimate i.e. getting married before "enjoying". Then there is a list of women that a man is forbidden to marry. In 425 the topic started in 421 and 422 is continued. In 425 when The God mentions "enjoyment", that "enjoyment" is AFTER the binding marriage contract already mentioned in 422. The point is that AFTER THE MARRIAGE CONTRACT if one has "enjoyment" but has not given the ujoor yet, then one should give the ujoor soon after "enjoyment". Ideally one ahould have given the ujoor before "enjoyment" (AFTER GETTING MARRIED) but if one has not done so then ujoor can be given after "enjoyment" to fulfil the obligation already defined in the marriage contract. FOR SEX TO BE LAWFUL BOTH CONDITIONS HAVE TO BE MET MARRIAGE AND GIVING UJOOR. Read all the ayat from 421 onwards carefully and see the context
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?
Here The God is talking about replacing one WIFE instead of another, clearly showing the wife being divorced is ALREADY MARRIED. The God is saying do not take back the dowry that you gave your wife when you divorce her.
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.
Here The God is explaining the reason why you cannot take back the dowry. The "becoming intimate with each other" mentioned in this ayat is AFTER marriage, i.e. after the women have taken from you a strong/firm/binding covenant/contract, and after the dowry has already been given. Then after that is the list of the women forbidden for a man to marry
423 And do not marry what your fathers had married from the women, except what has already been done. It is a lewdness, and an abhorrence, and a bad path.
424 Forbidden for you are your mothers, and your daughters, and your sisters, and your fathers' sisters, and your mothers' sisters, and the daughters of your brother, and the daughters of your sister, and your foster mothers who suckled you, and your sisters from suckling, and the mothers of your wives, and your step-daughters residing in your homes from your wives which you have already consummated the marriage with; if you have not consummated the marriage then there is no sin upon you; and the wives of your sons that are from your seed, and that you join between two sisters except what has already been done. God is Forgiving, Merciful.
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.Here when The God is talking about the woman "who you already had joy with" is the same woman mentioned in 421 and 422 i.e. the WIFE, the one who already has the strong/binding/firm covenant/contract. It is the continuation of the same topic from 421 and 422. What is being said is that SEX IS LAWFUL ONLY WHEN BOTH CONDITIONS ARE MET MARRIAGE AND GIVING UJOOR.
426 And whoever of you cannot afford to marry the believing independent women, then from the still dependant believing young women. God is more aware of your faith, some of you to each other. You shall marry them with the permission of their parents and give them their wage in kindness; to be protected, not for illicit sex or taking lovers. If they become protected, then any of them who comes with lewdness shall have half the punishment of what is for the independent women of the retribution. This is for those who fear hardship from among you. But if you are patient it is better for you, and God is Forgiver, Merciful.
426 clearly mentions marriage first, then the ujoor. So one could be married and has not given the ujoor yet and has not had sexual intercourse yet. The marriage contract includes mentioning and defining the ujoor and agreeing to give the ujoor. The ujoor becomes obligatory AFTER the marriage. For sex to be lawful both conditions have to be met marriage (the physical, formal, legal marriage contract involving a witness) AND giving ujoor. Not just giving ujoor.
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.
So one can be married and has not had sex yet, and has not given ujoor yet. Again
2236 And if you divorce them BEFORE having sexual intercourse with them, but you have already agreed to the dowry
This clearly shows that marriage (the marriage contract) includes agreeing to the dowry; the dowry is given AFTER marriage. So one can be married and has not given the ujoor yet, and has not had sexual intercourse yet.
Regards,
Tanveer