Defenition of marriage suggests sex before marriage permitted?!
-
Ohh come on Samia, you are under-estimating my Arabic.
fe3l = tahsseen
fa3el = mohassen - male
maf3ool behe = mohassana - femalehmm
First tahseen is not the pattern of fe3l. fe3l hesn; hasuna fa3ula.
Why is the feminine "maf3uul behi/ agent" and the male is "fa3el/ actor"? What's your proof? You understand it in a way, then write whatever diacritical signs to support your understanding. The qur'aan was not revealed with these diacritical signs; so unless you have a logical reason, you cannot use them as evidence.
And I can tell you that yours are wrong diacritical signs, and God knew some will manipulate them, this is why he put the second part , or are you going to say they are different too, and that one is "maf3uul behi" and the other is "fa3el"?!Secondly, why can't a male be "muhsan"?
-
First tahseen is not the pattern of fe3l. fe3l hesn; hasuna fa3ula.
Why is the feminine "maf3uul behi/ agent" and the male is "fa3el/ actor"? What's your proof? You understand it in a way, then write whatever diacritical signs to support your understanding. The qur'aan was not revealed with these diacritical signs; so unless you have a logical reason, you cannot use them as evidence.
And I can tell you that yours are wrong diacritical signs, and God knew some will manipulate them, this is why he put the second part , or are you going to say they are different too, and that one is "maf3uul behi" and the other is "fa3el"?!Secondly, why can't a male be "muhsan"?
How did you reason that they played with the diactricial markings when a 'muhasan' male is actually a sunni idea!!! I guess it didn't go as planned. Ofcourse they said this to force a Torah law into the religion which is another story.
The word 'sefa7' is different I agree.
An angel just told me where in the Quran can you find a group of men called 'Mohasaneen'. peace
Peace,
Rami
-
Thats whoredom. Sorry. Forbidden.
No, sorry, that's getting the English language completely mixed up.
In English, whoredom is when you have sex in return for money.
Having multiple, simultainious husbands is polyandry.
There's no english word to specifically describe women (as opposed to men) having multiple sex partners to whom they are not married.
-
First tahseen is not the pattern of fe3l. fe3l hesn; hasuna fa3ula.
Why is the feminine "maf3uul behi/ agent" and the male is "fa3el/ actor"? What's your proof? You understand it in a way, then write whatever diacritical signs to support your understanding. The qur'aan was not revealed with these diacritical signs; so unless you have a logical reason, you cannot use them as evidence.
And I can tell you that yours are wrong diacritical signs, and God knew some will manipulate them, this is why he put the second part , or are you going to say they are different too, and that one is "maf3uul behi" and the other is "fa3el"?!Secondly, why can't a male be "muhsan"?
Peace ;
Neither "tahseen" nor "hesna" are "Fe3l". Both of them are nouns i.e ismul masdar.
Regards -
How did you reason that they played with the diactricial markings when a 'muhasan' male is actually a sunni idea!!!
Did I even mention "sunnis"? I am talking about YOU. I do not look at diacritical signs when I read the qur'aan, but you do and lay heavy weight on them.
Muhsan is a word, not an idea, and it's in the qur'aan. I do not know if sunnis even acknowledge the word "muhsan" or not, but you are "legalising" the "idea" they have, by taking their dicritical signs as truth. -
Peace sister
You saidWhat do you mean by first pair ?
RegardsI mean that the word "hesn" has the pattern of the word "fe3l". This is the Arabic equivalent to CVCC where V is the short vowel "e". In Arabic we use the letters Faa 3ain Laam for consonants of a root, then the different patterns of this root will have to respect the sequence of these letters, this is why "C" for consonnat is unapplicable in Arabic. The word "fe3l" is a noun from the root Faa 3ain Laam, and "hesn" is a noun too of the root Haa Saad Nuun, having the same pattern.
-
Peace all,
Am I the only one to have noticed the paradoxical nature of the title of this thread?
Whatever "marriage" is, however it is defined, then whatever the requirements for "marriage" are must have occurred for "marriage" to have taken place.
As such, "sex before marriage" is theoretically impossible.
-
Peace Meteora,
?And to everyone, I think the main discussion is about the meaning of "right hands possess", not what and what doesn't constitute a marriage?
If you took time to read the first three (3) posts of this thread then you would have known the objective of this post. May I ask why you didn?t try to find the answer yourself? More importantly if you do not know the objective then how would you add value to the thread. Anyway, here are some relevant quotes from the first three posts
?What i'm questioning is the concept of marriage.
I'm suggesting that the Quranic concept and description of marriage is pretty much the same as a couple in today's society.??I've been thinking about sex before marriage for a while in terms of whether it is morally acceptable in my mind/heart.
I concluded yes.?I hope now it is clear to you that the thread is about Quranic definition of marriage and if that definition supports the living arrangement of today's couple. I recommend you read the whole thread to determine the best answer. If you have a better answer, please provide it to us. Thanks.
Please remember that Quran is easy to understand. Therefore, finding an answer to said straightforward question should be quick, short and sweet for the believer.
MMA should not be discussed on this thread because ?couple in today's society? does not = MMA. Our target should be efficient answer to the question at hand.
Peace siki,
Please refer to your post on May 26, 2009, where you said ? This is going to be my 1000th post, yay and I am likely to be earning the 4th and final star. I thank HIM for choosing me to help his creation by improving understanding of his last and final scripture?
You sound like the fourth star is coming from the God or it is authorized by the God.
In reality these stars are given by web site without any Quranic criteria. This is an unquranic behavior and you are subscribing to it. Here is why
- A hypocrite gets four star by posting 1000 posts
- A person posts 1000 non-quality posts and get four stars
- A Muslim posts 1000 posts and gets four stars
- A believer posts 1000 posts and gets four stars
- A messenger of the God posts 10 good posts but gets no star
I hope you get my point of how worthless these stars are. People of understanding will reject it out-rite. On the other hand you rejoice in getting them to the point you have kept a daily account of it. Therefore, I must question your motive. Are you posting for the sake of achieving stars or for the good of you and others? You may have good intention but your behavior shows otherwise. Maybe the website will give certificate to Heaven when one reaches 10,000 posts or more.
You also said ?......and never let my ego or personal likes/dislikes comes in the way..........?. But I found your post that said ?For all who are posting to resolve this issue? quite egoistic in nature for the following reasons
You were giving direction as if you are the originator of this thread except that you were not
You disrespected the thread owner by doing so, in my opinion
You portrayed yourself as the one in control
If it was your thread then there is no problemI may agree with some of the things you said except that it wasn't your place to say it. I am providing these comments as constructive criticism. I hope you don't take it in a negative sense. We have to be mindful of others at all time.
Peace huruf,
?Congratulations also to siki for his 1000th post, great achievement in trying to polish the unpolished, and also for his n-th "you women who suck to the feminist western brainwash" post which I find so funny, unlike the rest which are more serious.?
Instead of correcting an unquranic behavior you are applauding it. I hope this was unintentional and an honest mistake. We should always critique our own write-up before publishing it.
Peace truthseeker11,
?...the couple can expose their private parts...? prior to Quranic marriage is the most ridiculous thing I have heard. Why limit your rationale to ?don't like each other's private parts? only. How about fertility? How do you satisfy this important criterion without having sex prior to marriage?
Also, oath is something that one does not wish to go back on whereas marriage proposal could be violated prior to the first sexual relation.
My point is that the definition of marriage is clear. I'm sure somewhere in the Quran it mentions giving dowries to the bride and witnesses, so as long as those conditions are met, a marriage can be established. If it's out of this pale - then no. People today tend to think of a marriage as having a big party and playing dress-up. This is not islamic per se.
I think now slaves and a wife is unacceptable. If God put or in, then it's or.