Re: Shariah law of marriage

On Mar 14, 1:23 pm, "Robert Houghton" <rober...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Altway (Feb 29) accused me of ignorance in my brief account of the
Shariah
> law of marriage; he produced no evidence that what I had to say was in
> error. Here follows more detail of the legal provisions I mentioned.

and he went on to a bland recitation of well-known facts and reached
no conclusion, Perhaps he felt none was needed because all he was
doing was proving he did so know something about the Shariah's
position on marriage. This is not a response to Robert or Altway but
rather a few thoughts of my own on the subject of Islamic marriage.

It seems to me to be absolutely clear that the teachings in the Qur'an
were originally meant to teach that - THERE SHOULD BE NO ***UAL
ACTIVITY OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE.

Not being a devout Muslim I feel free to believe that the exception
made in the text that has come down to us in "favor" of "those whom
your right hand possesses" was added to the original text of the
Qur'an in order to allow the magnates of early Islam to enjoy their
slave girls (not added by Allah's Messenger, of course).

What I want to point out is that marriage is assumed.

No part of the Qur'an establishes marriage as a new idea. as, for
example, the prohibition against riba is established. Marriage is
assumed, without comment, to be an automatic necessary part of human
life.

This is not the only example of the Qur'an assuming something to be an
automatic part of human life. There is the case of cir***cision which
is not even mentioned in the Qur'an - but was assumed automatically.
The Qur'an makes assumption about humanity on what basis we can only
guess. I never seen a discussion of what the Qur'an assumes - but
perhaps one or more exist.

Now it should be obvious to anyone who lives in a Western society that
marriage is not an obvious part of human society. *** and procreation
go on merrily without wedlock. Perhaps they shouldn't - but they are
not impossible.

Shouldn't the Qur'an have been more explicit about these matters?
Perhaps it originally was and the relevant ayats conveniently lost to
allow the early Muslim men more freedom to enjoy themselves?