Relationships
-
Asalamu alaikum )
2458 O you who believe, let those who are committed to you by oath, and those who have not yet attained puberty, request your permission regarding three times before the Dawn Salat, and when you put off your attire from the noon time, and after the Evening Salat. These are three private times for you. Other than these times, it is not wrong for you or them to intermingle with one another. God thus clarifies the revelations for you. And God is Knowledgeable, Wise.
I'm not sure what it means by "when you put off your attire from the noon". Though inshallah I don't think it should be a problem barek allah fik, thanks for the info )
-
I'll tell you what problems I think it would lead to, I think it's common sense but anyway
- Catching any sort of sickness/disease
- Getting that person pregnant
Ok protection is used these days though it's "possible" that it won't work effectively, plus if you're not using protection how can you be sure she is, maybe she isn't even if you have her word is her word enough?
- Addiction for the desire, if you do it once you might want to do it again and again and again. What if you can't have her anymore what are going to do? go for paid sex? that's just wrong.. that's just listening to your desires, lack of control and yah no good...
Anyway read what Tanveer said, he showed that it's wrong.
-
- Catching any sort of sickness/disease
lol, sorry I have to take a detour to explain my answer. Basically, look back to the history of where the idea that disease is contagious came from; late 1800's in France, two bio chemists of the time, Becahmp and Pasteur. Modern medicine is based on Pasteurs belief, that our bodies environment is a result of microbes, whilst Bechamps notion was the opposite, that the microbes are present as a result of our bodies environment.
Point being, something like Syphilis (or any other microbe) for example can only breed an a deteriorating environment, because as the environment decays microbes appear as natures janitors, cleaning up the dead and decaying cells, and the disease felt is what we experience during this process of elimination.
To make it very short, the sickness would not be contagious unless both parties had a unhealthy internal environment.
- Getting that person pregnant
You can get a person pregnant even when you are married. It is not logical to say because you are not married you will not take responibility for the results of your choices, nor to say that because you are not married you feel no 'real' emotions for that person.
Ok protection is used these days though it's "possible" that it won't work effectively, plus if you're not using protection how can you be sure she is, maybe she isn't even if you have her word is her word enough?
In all relationships there is a certain level of trust needed for them to function. If you can not trust a person when you are not married will you trust them more once you are married?
- Addiction for the desire, if you do it once you might want to do it again and again and again.
That is certainly wonderful, to have constant sex with someone you care for, no ?
What if you can't have her anymore what are going to do? go for paid sex? that's just wrong.. that's just listening to your desires, lack of control and yah no good...
So then your reason for marriage is that you know that you are garunteed sex, that then is choosing out of fear. And trying to control our desires is also choosing out of fear, just because you allow yourself to feel a certain way does not mean you will choose to act on that feeling.
Anyway read what Tanveer said, he showed that it's wrong.
Tanveer didn't say anything, he only posted up a quote from the Quran if I am not mistaken.
peace,
Khalil -
Good post Khalil.
In all relationships there is a certain level of trust needed for them to function. If you can not trust a person when you are not married will you trust them more once you are married?
Good point. This is my question exactly.
What do the words "I do" and a piece of paper change how two people feel about each other?I have said this over and over. The sex itself is not a problem at all. But the impacts could lead to problems.
What kind of problems? I know you mean sex outside of marriage. Excluding cheating on one's spouse.
-
Peace all,
Tanveer didn't say anything, he only posted up a quote from the Quran if I am not mistaken.
1732 And do not come near adultery, for it is a lewdness/immoral act/indecent act/sin and an evil path.
2131 When his Lord said to him "Submit," he said "I submit to the Lord of the worlds."
3936 Is God not enough for His servant? And they frighten you with others beside Him. And whomever God sends astray, then for him there will be no guide.
755 No, man desires that he continue committing sins.
1224 And she desired him and he desired her, had it not been that he saw His Lord's proof; it was thus that We turned evil and lewdness away from him; he is of Our loyal servants.
2371 And if the truth were to follow their desires, then the heavens and the Earth and all who are in them would have been corrupted. No, We have come to them with their reminder, but from their reminder they are turning away.
1829 And Say "The truth is from your Lord, so let whomever desires believe, and whomever desires reject."
-
Peace all,
For whom God's words are not enough, a literature review published in the Journal of Marriage of Family (Ross et. al., 19901061) from the following website
http//members.aol.com/cohabiting/health.htm
Those who live together (and stay single) have very high and increasing rates of health-destroying and dangerous behaviors.
A survey entitled "Monitoring the Future" followed the attitudes and behaviors of high school seniors through the next decades of their lives and found that young men and young women who cohabit in adulthood are different from their peers who don't, even while still in high school (Bachman et.al., 1997173-74). Cohabitors drank more, used more marijuana and cocaine than those who made the choice either to marry or to live singlely.
Those who live together and stay single are at high risk of premature death.
Unmarried (including divorced, widowed and single) people are far more likely to die from all causes, including coronary heart disease, stroke, pneumonia, many kinds of cancer, cirrhosis of the liver, automobile accidents, murder and suicide - all leading causes of death (Waite & Gallagher 20004. For both men and women, being unmarried is one of the greatest risks that people voluntarily subject themselves to (Cohen & Lee 1979707-22). Being unmarried can actually be a greater risk to one's life than having heart disease or cancer. For example, having heart disease shortens the average man's live expectancy by slightly less than six years. But, being unmarried takes almost ten years off a man's life. "How much can getting married do for you?" asks Waite and Gallagher (200047); "it can literally save your life!" A literature review published in the Journal of Marriage of Family (Ross et. al., 19901061), found that compared to married people , the nonmarried . . . have higher rates of mortality than the married 50% higher among women and 250% higher among men!
Those who choose to marry rather than live together live longer and healthier lives.
This is primarily because singles often lead unhealthy and risk-filled lives. A large body of research confirms folk wisdom Married people really do settle down, while those who aren't married voluntarily behave in ways that endanger their own life and health. Singles are more likely to smoke, to drink heavily, to drink and drive, to drive fast, to get into fights, and to take other risks that increase the chances of accidents and injuries (Ross et. al., 19901059-78 and Umberson 1987306-19). One might say, "cohabiting has settled me down, therefore I'm not at high risk." Cohabitation however, does not confer the same kind of health benefits as does marriage. Cohabitation and marriage are, in fact, very different. There is something about marriage itself which improves the years and quality of life. Among the reasons for this, say Waite and Gallagher (200047-64), is that marriage has (1) Social Support. Spouses encourage healthy behavior that in turn affects emotional and physical well-being regular sleep, a healthy diet, moderate drinking, schedule and monitor each other's checkup and health habits and compliance with doctor's orders. (2) Emotional Support. Helps people recover better, manage chronic disease and can actually boost the immune system. (3) Financial Support. Higher incomes boost access to health prevention, treatment and long-term care. The heavier commitment of marriage brings with it long-term concern over your spouse's future well-being not found in cohabitation.
Those who live together are at high risk for having an unwanted pregnancy.
If their purpose for cohabiting is as a trial relationship, then any pregnancy is unwanted. Some cohabitors are teenagers (e.g., those who leave home early and first and second year college students). According to the National Center for Health Statistics, births to unmarried teenagers have continued to increase astronomically 56% in the 1950s, 119% in the 60s, 38% in the 70s, and another 19% in the 80s. More than 1 million teenage girls will get pregnant this year and nearly a half of these pregnancies will be aborted. Half of the children born out of wedlock never complete school and most end up on welfare.
Those who live together are at high risk for contracting HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.
It has been said that when you have sex with a person who has been sexually promiscuous, then you have sex with everyone with whom that person has previously had sex and therefore can potentially catch whatever disease any of them have contracted. There are at least three health concerns related to cohabiting STDs, HIV/AIDS, and cancer.
According to the Center for Disease Control, cases of STDs have tripled in just six years. Approximately 15.3 million new cases occur annually in the United States; one in four of the victums are under 20. Five of the 11 most common reportable infectious diseases in this country in 1998 were STDs (and that doesn't include the most common STD's, herpes and HPV - human papillomavirus). There are about five dozen STDs including chlamydia, gonorrhea, herpes, syphilis, and genital warts and if left untreated, can lead to arthritis, brain damage, heart disease, infertility, and even death. Nearly two dozen STDs are incurable. Most who cohabit today, especially women, are teens or in their twenties. It is in this age group that STDs are growing fastest. One study over a 5-year period found that 6.3% of cohabiting women had been to STD clinics for treatment compared to only 1.1% of married women (Ciavola 1997). Josh McDowell (1987) says that STDs do not recognize a person's religious or moral beliefs, only his or her actions. HPV is the fastest spreading STD in the U.S. It causes genital warts and over 90 percent of cancer and pre-cancer of the cervix. About 5,000 American women die of this HPV-associated cancer each year.
-
Peace Tanver,
You are taking my words out of context, I said Tanveer did not say any words because you did not say any words, you quoted from the Quran, it is a correct statement and observation. What I was asked was to "read what Tanveer said" since you quoted words I responded, "Tanveer did not say any words."
Your quotes still dont explain why having sex outside of marriage is any less than having sex inside of marriage. What the quotes do show, is a judgement of desire.
For whom God's words are not enough,
why suh a low blow, do you not feel your self capable to answer the question?
The article is just an article. Incidences such as cancer, heart-disease, stroke, etc relate to poor diet. Look at cultures that were disease free and not that disease resulted when they changed their diets, this is documented, a good start would be to look at Dr. Weston A Prices book Nutrition and Physical Degeneration or Dr. Pottengers Cat studies. An example, the first case of cancer among Eskimos was in 1936, when Eskimos would get cancer to reverse it they would return to their original diet. You can look at heart-disease such as Artheriosclerosis and note its rise corresponds with the increase of hydrogenated oils (margarine) and decrease in saturated fats. Again, not related to marriage.
In regards to the spread of disease. Look into the germ theory, have you even questioned whether its based on fact or is psuedo-science?
So, now what is your opinion?
peace,
Khalil -
Peace all,
The scientific studies quoted in the article were controlled for all other variables (including diet etc.) except marital status, or living together without marriage versus living separately, thus the increased adverse incidences observed in non-married people living together were only the result of variation in marital status or cohabitation status and nothing else. The facts speak for themselves.
I am not going to discuss this matter any further.
Peace out
-
Peace all,
The scientific studies quoted in the article were controlled for all other variables (including diet etc.) except marital status, thus the increased adverse incidences observed in non-married were only the result of variation in marital status and nothing else. The facts speak for themselves.
Modern medicine is really astray in regards to what constitutes a healthful diet and the role of microbes. Look at cultures who were disease free, such as the eskimo, and see what caused them disease (adopting a western diet) and it was a return to their original diet that reversed their disease. Its not an obscure observation. As well, look to a nature, a great teacher, when you change an animals diet they become diseased, they are disease free on their natural diet, to my awareness no animals are married. Their lack of marriage does not cause them disease, a change in their diet does. Again, not an obscure observation.
Though in your own words, can you tell me why you believe sex outside of marriage to be different than sex in side of marriage?
peace,
Khalil -
peace
What is the difference between two people living together, having children, sharing responsibities, living happy lives, and two people who are married and living together, having children, sharing responsibilities, living happy lives?
The physical act of marriage doesn't do anything.
The only reason that what the article in Tanveer's post says is true is because in our society, marriage = all the things mentioned above. When people want to live togther and raise a family, they go through a ritual and sign a legal contract. WHen people aren't that into living together and raising a family, they don't do it.
So it has nothing to do with marriage itself, but society's outlook on the ritual of marriage.So in reality, being married or unmarried makes no real difference.
-
You can get a person pregnant even when you are married. It is not logical to say because you are not married you will not take responibility for the results of your choices, nor to say that because you are not married you feel no 'real' emotions for that person.
Come on man, lets be realistic. Maybe you yourself are a responsible person that if one day your girlfriend got pregnant you would not leave her and take full responsibility (I assume you are into sex outside marriage), but you need to remember that not EVERYONE on this planet is like you. I'm sure you know better than that. There are countless cases in which the man refuses to take responsibility after getting his partner pregnant. This is especially common in teen pregnancy cases.
Speaking of the difference of married couple and unmarried couple, if there really was no difference then why not just get married? Not only it could make the relationship felt more special, it could also motivate the couple to care even more for their family.
Peace,
-
Peace all,
I see that some people don't want to accept scientific facts, let alone God's words. Nevertheless, some more scientific facts that refute the "cohabitation" camp
"Cohabitation typically does not bring the benefits?in physical health, wealth, and emotional wellbeing?that marriage does. In terms of these benefits cohabitants in the United States more closely resemble singles than married couples. This is due, in part, to the fact that cohabitants tend not to be as committed as married couples, and they are more oriented toward their own personal autonomy and less to the wellbeing of their partner."
REFERENCES
Stephen L. Nock, "A Comparison of Marriages and Cohabiting Relationships" Journal of Family Issues 16-1 (1995) 53-76; Amy Mehraban Pienta, et. al., "Health Consequences of Marriage for the Retirement Years" Journal of Family Issues 21-5 (2000)559-586; Susan L. Brown, "The Effect of Union Type on Psychological Well-Being Depression Among Cohabitors versus Marrieds" Journal of Health and Social Behavior 41(2000)241-255; Susan L. Brown and Alan Booth, "Cohabitation Versus Marriage A Comparison of Relationship Quality" Journal of Marriage and the Family 58 (1996)668-678.
"Contrary to the proposition that for men "a marriage license is a hitting license," a large body of research shows that being unmarried?and especially living with a man outside of marriage?is associated with a considerably higher risk of domestic violence for women. Women are less likely to marry and more likely to divorce a man who is violent. Yet it is probably also the case that married men are less likely to commit domestic violence because they are more invested in their wives? wellbeing, and more integrated into the extended family and community. These social forces seem to help check men?s violent behavior."
REFERENCES
Jan E. Stets, "Cohabiting and Marital Aggression The Role of Social Isolation" Journal of Marriage and the Family 53 (1991)669-680; Richard J. Gelles, Intimate Violence in Families, 3rd ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA 1997); Linda J. Waite and Maggie Gallagher, The Case for Marriage (New York Doubleday, 2000) Ch. 11
The following from this website
http//www.vifamily.ca/library/cft/cohabitation.html
Are marriage and cohabitation equivalent?
Many people have come to believe that marriage is merely a matter of lifestyle choice and has few overall consequences or advantages over cohabitation. The two are equivalent. The research literature does not support this view at this point. Rather, studies indicate that marriage, particularly a good and equitable one, carries many benefits for the spouses. It is above all highly beneficial to children, whether it is equitable or not between the parents.
Among those who adhere to the equivalency of various types of family structure for children's well-being, there is a school of thought whose proponents argue that what is important for children's outcomes and well-being is not family structure (one versus two parents, marriage versus cohabitation), but healthy family processes. The research certainly supports the notion that healthy family dynamics are important predictors of children's positive outcomes regardless of their parents' marital status. But the fact remains that healthy family dynamics are more likely to occur in two-parent families of the married type, as are positive child outcomes. The reason is that, on average, these families experience more stability, fewer stressors, and a greater level of long-term commitment on the part of the adults involved.
However functional and rewarding cohabitation is for many adults, its benefits have yet to be substantiated by research. This is especially so for children and for society at large. Interestingly enough, cohabitation may be more functional and equitable for older adults who have already been married at least once. Yet, currently, older adults are least likely to enter into such relationships because of matters of morality and also because of the imbalance in the sex ratio at older ages, fewer men are available.
Another indicator of the lack of equivalency of cohabitation with marriage resides in the fact that, in many countries, same-sex couples are seeking the right to be married. Obviously, they do not believe that cohabitation or even a registered partnership is as beneficial as marriage. Many such couples call these options "second best" (Ambert, 2005b).
The evidence at this point does not indicate that young women gain as much from cohabitation as from marriage, unless their partner is committed to marry them if they so want. The "sexual revolution" should not be taken as synonymous with "women's liberation" and women's best interest. While there is some good in the sexual revolution, it has not completely eliminated the double standard. It still has benefited males more than females in the sense that it has made more women available to men sexually?and cohabitation has been one avenue through which this has occurred. Indeed, as we have seen earlier, despite the apparent popularity of cohabitation among young people, women are less interested than men in this lifestyle (Milan, 2003). As well my observations tell me that too many women are heartbroken as a result of having experienced the dissolution of their cohabitation. Terminating a dating relationship seems less traumatic. Furthermore, on average, cohabitation also carries risks for a mother who is single. For instance, her partner may not be committed to her children and one can wonder what happens to them when the union breaks up?
When mothers and fathers have pre-teens and teenagers, repeated episodes of cohabitation are problematic on many fronts. In my fieldwork, I have encountered many mothers whose children were fully aware of their sex lives and who prematurely followed their example, at times with unfortunate results (pregnancies, STDs, loss of interest in school, accompanied delinquency, and disengagement from family life). "If you're doing it, you have no right to tell me I can't," was a reply some of these mothers received when trying to monitor their adolescents' dating. Furthermore, we know that an insecure union places a woman through a great deal of emotional turmoil, which then strains her parenting ability.
Overall, my concerns with cohabitation reside in its frequent lack of commitment on the part of at least one partner. Hence cohabitation is a more insecure and potentially hurtful situation than marriage is, even considering the current divorce rate. Were cohabitation to become more like marriage, I am certain that my opinion would change accordingly. As Smock (2004871) points out, "Whether cohabitation becomes more like marriage or marriage more like cohabitation, something like marriage is here to stay."
(Emphasis in above article is mine)
A power point presentation
http//www2.gsu.edu/~wwwche/cohabitation.ppt
Another article
http//marriageandfamilies.byu.edu/issues/2001/January/cohabitation.htm
When people continue to reject scientifically proven facts based on their personal opinions, whims, and desires without any solid scientific or factual basis, then any further discussion with them becomes meaningless. This also applies to those who make some comments and when their comments/points are answered and refuted, they make the same or irrelevent comments again and/or make wrong analogies and/or ask questions which have already been answered. Perhaps they don't read the full reply, or perhaps they don't understand what a controlled scientific study is, in which all variables are controlled and are thus not the cause of the outcome of the study except the variable in question.
brickwall brickwall brickwall elektro
-
What I meant by ?what Tanveer said? is what he quoted what he typed in his box, be it Quotes or his own words.
Anyway why would there be such a thing as ?marriage? if there is no logic behind it? Marriage isn?t about signing a paper it?s more than that. Besides in Islam do you need to sign a paper to be married? As far as I know, no you don?t.
Do you think having sex before marriage is being closer to following the guide or do you think getting married is closer?
Also khalil, if your body happens to be unhealthy without your knowledge for whatever reason, and hers is and then you get sick and then for some reason you break up and then you have another new fond lover and the sickness spreads? Then what? It was perfectly innocent wasn?t it.
Where did the term bastard come from? Why do people till now take offense to that word? Most people aren?t able to take the responsibility of a child outside wedlock in my opinion ?marriage? makes you take responsibility. And as jankren mentioned not all people are responsible, lots of people are used and dumped. Why are there so many single mothers out there this day in ages I wonder.. hmm.
?In all relationships there is a certain level of trust needed for them to function. If you can not trust a person when you are not married will you trust them more once you are married??
That?s why you don?t marry them. I know this girl she intentionally had sex with a guy she told him she had protection but she didn?t. He believed her he trusted her. She wanted to get pregnant so that he wouldn?t leave her. Thankfully she didn?t get pregnant but do you understand what I mean? People do things to their advantage or disadvantage.
"That is certainly wonderful, to have constant sex with someone you care for, no ?"
No not if you?re told to stay away from such acts before marriage (according to your belief anyway). What do you think fornication is? Do you think is ok? Do you think Islam promotes fornication?
"So then your reason for marriage is that you know that you are garunteed sex, that then is choosing out of fear. And trying to control our desires is also choosing out of fear, just because you allow yourself to feel a certain way does not mean you will choose to act on that feeling. "
Marriage is more than sex, but yes it guarantees you sex. And it is not choosing out of fear it is choice out of decency I would say. I could have easily had sex by now, but no I choose not to have sex until I get married that?s my personal choice and I believe this is the right way. It has nothing to do with fear in my opinion to have sex with people for pleasure is indecent even out of love or care.
I?ve liked many people in my past even loved, how much I would have regretted my life if I had sex with them.At the end of the day you have a brain, I have a brain. You have kowledge, you gain knowledge. You follow what you believe is right according to your beleifs and one day we will get judged and that's life )
Asalamu alaikum
-
What is the difference between two people living together, having children, sharing responsibities, living happy lives, and two people who are married and living together, having children, sharing responsibilities, living happy lives?
Nothing. There is no difference. So why do it? Why not marry but live together?
People look at living together, cohabitation, chilling out, call it what you want as an alternative man made SYSTEM to Gods perfect SYSTEM of marriage. Its more a rejection of something established and proven (marriage) rather than an actual need to change things or way of living.
Basically it's the same crap as with other human systems - monarchy, comunism, capitalism.... -
Speaking of marriage, I remember what bro Ahmed Bagat once said. One of the main purposes of marriage is not the signing of contract on a piece of paper (Marriages do not really require official paper actually), instead it is to let other people know that A&B have made an oath to be together and they are responsible for the well-being of one another. Therefore, as a result pressure from society would help to force the couple to be faithful to each other. You know for example when you are married, it is harder for you to follow your desire and make a move on C because C, D, and E know that you are already married to B. But of course some women find it challenging to take away other peoples husbands jk.
Peace,
-
Peace Jankren,
Come on man, lets be realistic. Maybe you yourself are a responsible person that if one day your girlfriend got pregnant you would not leave her and take full responsibility (I assume you are into sex outside marriage), but you need to remember that not EVERYONE on this planet is like you. I'm sure you know better than that. There are countless cases in which the man refuses to take responsibility after getting his partner pregnant. This is especially common in teen pregnancy cases.
That is not applicable to everyone. And what will stop you from abondoning your responsibilities once your married, and how is that a healthy relationship?
Speaking of the difference of married couple and unmarried couple, if there really was no difference then why not just get married? Not only it could make the relationship felt more special, it could also motivate the couple to care even more for their family.
Not everyone stays together forever, and that does not make relationships that are not forever any less meaningfull. That in its self is a good reason to not get married. But I am not advocating either position. I am saying, sex outside of marriage, really, isn't something to tripp about.
peace,
Khalil