honeymoon with the WHOLE family?

[sarah and hicham 3]

good morning!

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Whatever, Layla. I know you to have only a fleeting acquantance with the truth, and are forgetful about what is said; that is evident in so much of what you post . Perhaps you are irredeemable per this subject, I don't know, and I don't have all day to spend repeating myself. All I know is that as long as you claim to be married in Islam because you signed a paper and no more, you will be challenged on it, and that's a fact.

Edited October 14, 2006 by szsz

[Veiled Princess 1]

Whatever, Layla. I know you to have only a fleeting acquantance with the truth, and are forgetful about what is said; that is evident in so much of what you post . Perhaps you are irredeemable per this subject, I don't know, and I don't have all day to spend repeating myself. All I know is that as long as you claim to be married in Islam because you signed a paper and no more, you will be challenged on it, and that's a fact.

Whatever SZSZ. I am married in Islam because I have completed what is now and has always been the requirements of such. If you don't agree with that it's fine... it's fine for you to even voice your disagreement but it's NOT fine for you to personally attack me on this board by calling my name in your posts or accusing me of anything.

It's really none of your business what I do... you do not know me and I don't know you.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Whatever SZSZ. I am married in Islam because I have completed what is now and has always been the requirements of such. If you don't agree with that it's fine... it's fine for you to even voice your disagreement but it's NOT fine for you to personally attack me on this board by calling my name in your posts or accusing me of anything.

You are not married in Islam, and I will not permit that lie to stand unchallenged, allowing others to believe it to be true. You may say repeat it and repeat it, but that will never make it true.

It's really none of your business what I do... you do not know me and I don't know you.

You should keep your business to yourself, not display it on a public board for all to see.

BTW, I am not the only one who has challenged you, although you love to maintain the illusion that I am the only one, the mean one. Doubts about your claims were raised prior to mine on this thread. I am not the only one who challenges you.

Pg 14, posts 207, 208 and 210.

Pg 15, posts 213, 216, 220, 223, 224, 225.

Pg 16, posts 228-232, & 234.

Pg 17, posts 247 - 250.

You are being challenged, more and more, and I was no where around for that round. You will be challenged because you are wrong.

And it is only natural to assume sexual involvement from you who claims that it is permissible in the kind of "marriage" you claim to have. Nikah does mean "sexual intercourse", after all.

[Veiled Princess 1]

This is interesting since I'm being called outside of the realm of the law and protections of the law for considering myself married.... common law marriage IS legal in my state and ARE upholdable in court!!!!

link

In South Carolina, a common law marriage is formed when two parties have a present intent to enter into a marriage contract. Id. "It is essential to a common law marriage that there shall be a mutual agreement between the parties to assume toward each other the relation of husband and wife." Johnson v. Johnson, 235 S.C. 542, 550, 112 S.E.2d 647, 651 (1960).

The difference between marriage and concubinage . . . rests in the intent of the cohabiting parties; the physical and temporal accompaniments of the cohabitation may be the same in both cases, but the intent in the two cases is widely apart always. The intent in marriage is usually evidenced by a public and unequivocal declaration of the parties, but that is not necessary; the intent may exist though never public and formally declared; nevertheless the intent must exist. . . . It is true that when the intent has not been formally and publicly declared, . . . it may yet rest in circumstances.

I guess I'm within the letter of the law here heh? Since it IS possible for my state to recognize my marriage as common-law and offer me rights as a wife I guess you're wrong

BTW, I am not the only one who has challenged you, although you love to maintain the illusion that I am the only one, the mean one. Doubts about your claims were raised prior to mine on this thread. I am not the only one who challenges you.

Pg 14, posts 207, 208 and 210.

Pg 15, posts 213, 216, 220, 223, 224, 225.

Pg 16, posts 228-232, & 234.

Pg 17, posts 247 - 250.

You are being challenged, more and more, and I was no where around for that round. You will be challenged because you are wrong.

And it is only natural to assume sexual involvement from you who claims that it is permissible in the kind of "marriage" you claim to have. Nikah does mean "sexual intercourse", after all.

There was no attacking in any of those posts... there is a huge difference in questioning or challenging a person's belief/opinion and actually attacking and accusing a person because of it. A highly educated person such as yourself should know the difference.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Honey, even in a common law state (I live in a common-law state, too) there are laws to follow to be recognized as common law. You either follow them, or you don't. You also don't meet the requirements for a common-law marriage.

But, please, do you or don't you recognize the legitimacy of secular law or not? You seem to want it both ways; recognize it if it suits you, don't when it doesn't.

There are laws to follow, Layla. You are trying to make up your own and have others acquiese to them. It just doesn't work that way.

There was no attacking in any of those posts... there is a huge difference in questioning or challenging a person's belief/opinion and actually attacking and accusing a person because of it. A highly educated person such as yourself should know the difference.

If I had written them, you would say they were attacking. All who opposed you were not buying your line, and neither do I, I just come out and say in simple words, you're not married, Layla. But others are saying it too, just not so plainly.

Edited October 14, 2006 by szsz

[Veiled Princess 1]

And it is only natural to assume sexual involvement from you who claims that it is permissible in the kind of "marriage" you claim to have. Nikah does mean "sexual intercourse", after all.

But you accused me with no proof.... your assumption is not proof...

[024:004] And those who accuse chaste women, and produce not four witnesses, flog them with eighty stripes, and reject their testimony forever. They indeed are the Fâsiqûn (liars, rebellious, disobedient to Allâh).

Where is the shari'a court when one needs it???

Honey, even in a common law state (I live in a common-law state, too) there are laws to follow to be recognized as common law. You either follow them, or you don't. You also don't meet the requirements for a common-law marriage.

But, please, do you or don't you recognize the legitimacy of secular law or not? You seem to want it both ways; recognize it if it suits you, don't when it doesn't.

There are laws to follow, Layla. You are trying to make up your own and have others acquiese to them. It just doesn't work that way.

There was no attacking in any of those posts... there is a huge difference in questioning or challenging a person's belief/opinion and actually attacking and accusing a person because of it. A highly educated person such as yourself should know the difference.

If I had written them, you would say they were attacking. All who opposed you were not buying your line, and neither do I, I just come out and say in simple words, you're not married, Layla. But others are saying it too, just not so plainly.

It's not for you to say... it's your opinion. I posted what constitutes a common-law marriage in my state... and I fit the requirements but it's really neither here nor there because it really doesn't make me any more or less married because I have fulfilled the requirements per Islam.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

There's nothing remiss in assuming a couple who holds themselves out as married has engaged in intimate relations. That is only natural. That issue only arose because you were beating up on people who have sex out of marriage while maintaining that all it takes to be married is a belief that one is married. Rebecca (another Muslim, btw) called your position spurious and I agree. Some of us Muslims are insulted when sprurious claims are made in the name of Islam. You know that! You've shown that indignation yourself when need be, only htis time, it's directed at you.

[sarah and hicham 3]

Sorry this is not to stir things up I am just curious to ask VP a question.

Let's just say you had registered your marriage in the country where you were married (Egypt?)

Would you still be defending your opinion that religious marriages without registration are recognized "true" marriages? (I hope that makes sense, you know what I mean)

Also I am sure this has already been said but I'm just curious to know why one can get married under God in a country where they do not live and do not have citizenship can see that as a true marriage when it is not recognized that way in the country they live in and are from (the US) since you are married however filing for a fiance visa.

Just curious.

Sarah

ETA: I guess it just seems to me that even if one is married in a country where you don't have to register your marriage for it to be recognized (which I don't even know if that is true) that you can't really consider yourself under that "law" since you are not from that country and do not reside in the ME/NA but rather in America. Since you are going to file under the laws of the US then shouldn't you follow those rules of marriage even if you are married abroad? I could be way off but I am just curious to know about this.

Edited October 14, 2006 by sarah and hicham

[Sofiyya 1,687]

It's not for you to say... it's your opinion. I posted what constitutes a common-law marriage in my state... and I fit the requirements

That can be easily confirmed or denied; only a handful of states have common-law marriage. I would bet they would require that you share a domicile, which you don't. You are bringing out the legal researcher in me, I will check it out and report back.

but it's really neither here nor there because it really doesn't make me any more or less married because I have fulfilled the requirements per Islam.

Like it has been said before, a ceremony does not a valid marriage make.

These site give overall information about common law marriage.

Common Law Marriage

Common Law Marriage Fact Sheet

Islam recognizes common law marriages to slaves, btw, but I don't think that's what you mean.

[Veiled Princess 1]

There's nothing remiss in assuming a couple who holds themselves out as married has engaged in intimate relations. That is only natural. That issue only arose because you were beating up on people who have sex out of marriage while maintaining that all it takes to be married is a belief that one is married. Rebecca (another Muslim, btw) called your position spurious and I agree. Some of us Muslims are insulted when sprurious claims are made in the name of Islam. You know that! You've shown that indignation yourself when need be, only htis time, it's directed at you.

I don't understand how you can think that my opinion is not genuine because of what I have stated. I have explained the difference between the sex that I believe should be illegal and the private matters between a couple who announce themselves as, consider themselves as, and live their lives as husband and wife in a committed relationship.

I was not beating up on anyone... I stated my opinion about the law and society.

No one can deny that the amount of sex in this society between individuals who have no commitment/marriage to each other is out of control. If a couple considers themselves married under their beliefs, however, that's their business.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

STATE-BY-STATE REQUIREMENTS TO FORM A COMMON LAW MARRIAGE:*

Alabama: The requirements for a common-law marriage are: (1) capacity; (2) an agreement to be husband and wife; and (3) consummation of the marital relationship.

Colorado: A common-law marriage may be established by proving cohabitation and a reputation of being married.

Iowa: The requirements for a common-law marriage are: (1) intent and agreement to be married; (2) continuous cohabitation; and (3) public declarations that the parties are husband and wife.

Kansas: For a man and woman to form a common-law marriage, they must: (1) have the mental capacity to marry; (2) agree to be married at the present time; and (3) represent to the public that they are married.

Montana: The requirements for a common-law marriage are: (1) capacity to consent to the marriage; (2) an agreement to be married; (3) cohabitation; and (4) a reputation of being married.

Oklahoma: To establish a common-law marriage, a man and woman must (1) be competent; (2) agree to enter into a marriage relationship; and (3) cohabit.

Pennsylvania: A common-law marriage may be established if a man and woman exchange words that indicate that they intend to be married at the present time.

Rhode Island: The requirements for a common-law marriage are: (1) serious intent to be married and (2) conduct that leads to a reasonable belief in the community that the man and woman are married.

South Carolina: A common-law marriage is established if a man and woman intend for others to believe they are married.

Texas: A man and woman who want to establish a common-law marriage must sign a form provided by the county clerk. In addition, they must (1) agree to be married, (2) cohabit, and (3) represent to others that they are married.

Utah: For a common-law marriage, a man and woman must (1) be capable of giving consent and getting married; (2) cohabit; and (3) have a reputation of being husband and wife.

Washington, D.C.: The requirements for a common-law marriage are: (1) an express, present intent to D.C. be married and (2) cohabitation.

New Hampshire. This state recognizes common law marriages only upon the death of one of the spouses. In other words, common law marriages are recognized in New Hampshire for inheritance purposes only.

Cohabitation is a big deal for most states.

Edited October 14, 2006 by szsz

[Veiled Princess 1]

Sorry this is not to stir things up I am just curious to ask VP a question.

Let's just say you had registered your marriage in the country where you were married (Egypt?)

Would you still be defending your opinion that religious marriages without registration are recognized "true" marriages? (I hope that makes sense, you know what I mean)

Yes, I would hold the same opinion. I have held this opinion since long before I was married and at the time I had the intention to register my marriage there... not to validate my marriage commitment to my husband but to comply with immigration law so we'd be able to file DCF. *sigh* I wish that would have happened... I bet he'd be here already *sigh*

Also I am sure this has already been said but I'm just curious to know why one can get married under God in a country where they do not live and do not have citizenship can see that as a true marriage when it is not recognized that way in the country they live in and are from (the US) since you are married however filing for a fiance visa.

ETA: I guess it just seems to me that even if one is married in a country where you don't have to register your marriage for it to be recognized (which I don't even know if that is true) that you can't really consider yourself under that "law" since you are not from that country and do not reside in the ME/NA but rather in America. Since you are going to file under the laws of the US then shouldn't you follow those rules of marriage even if you are married abroad? I could be way off but I am just curious to know about this.

I have already posted that my state does recognize non-govt-registered marriages so this is an incorrect statement... when filing for any visa one has to follow immigration law which does not always reflect federal/state govt of this country.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

No one can deny that the amount of sex in this society between individuals who have no commitment/marriage to each other is out of control. If a couple considers themselves married under their beliefs, however, that's their business.

I agree with your first assertion, and I would agree with the second, as well. However, you have posted your business here under the guise of permissibility in Islam. That is where we part ways. Marriage with no recognition, no means of protection, no means of shura or divorce, or inheritance, no recouse, no way to stop a spouse from taking a legal partner is not a marriage sanctioned by Islam, and it is imperative that people know that to be the case.

[Veiled Princess 1]

I would bet they would require that you share a domicile, which you don't.

Who's to say I have not?

Like it has been said before, a ceremony does not a valid marriage make.

A marriage contract with two witnesses does.