How sex before Marriage is not haram (prohibited) according to the Quran
-
Salam Sarah
The surgeon is doing good, by performing the operation. What good do you get from premarital sexual relations? Other than fulfilling a desire? Especially if its just one girl you met one night and decide you wanna fling.
What's wrong with fulfilling a desire if it does not contradict with morals? Fulfilling desires is wrong only when they contradict morals and principles as that is when you are only following your desire.
Were warned to stay away from zina, fahsha. I know it encompasses more than what the typical muslim thinks but how do you see it?
Zina to me is when some who is married, has sex outside of marriage. In other words, adultery
Fahsha is subjective yet clear in certain cases such as porn or sexual fetishes and so on. To watch them is a type of lewdness IMO.No Im not saying its the only purpose but for some it could be. Though what are you saying then, a premarital relationships is just for sex? So MMA arent necessarily commitments for life their comments for when we both want? Sounds kinda prostitutional dont you think?
Relationships without responsibility? Whoever came up with that nonsense? Lots of people dont get married unless they have the means. why is marriage much more committed than a premarital relationship? even you recognise less commitment in such a relationship
Sex is a responsibility just because people use protection it doesnt mean the lady will never get pregnant. It happens, what then? You think the baby wont be your responsibility? Or is a premarital responsibility pleasure only?
Again i will say that i agree with marriage as a stronger commiment then a premarital relationship BUT this does not mean that sex is exclusive to marriages.
Ok, it seems odd to think two people agree on having sex together as righteous.
It is not about wether it is righteouss. it is about wether it is unrighteouss or not. If unrighteouss, then wrong and thus most likely prohibited. If not then most likely not prohibited. I am not claiming that having sex=righteoussness. What i am claiming is that if two people agree to have sex, it is not NECCESSARILY unrighteouss.
Dress code isnt totally subjective, it states what is necessary.
Same with premarital sex.
The heart can be influenced by desire, reason can also be influenced how can you be sure your reasoning is just?
You have no other tool to use in life. Everything goes through the heart and reason. Individuals are responsible for using these tools given to them as correctly as possible and to the best of their abillity. That means IMPARTIALLITY and openmindedness and the refusal to manipulate your own reason to suite your desire. You will be held accountable for such misuses.
Ok, a waiting period for a divorced women is like what? 3 months? 3 period cycles? If I had sex cos I thought its halal and then decided nah stuff this guy the neighbour next door is looking pretty cute and decide to sleep with him? Do I have to wait 3 period cycles? or not, does this rule only apply to the one married? dont you think quran would be clear about it if it was ok to have sex before marriage
The waiting period is specific to divorce. So in the exmaple you give, no you don't. You could just jump from one guy to another if it does not go against your moral principles. I was thinking if sex before marriage was prohibited, it would have been made clear just as zina is made clear. As it is not and as there are restrictions and limitations with respect to sex, i understand that all sex is allowed except what is restricet and limited.
How is this not injustice? It seems to me that its more about selfish pleasure
Selfish pleasure? Both sides are agreeing to something! They are both fulfilling a desire. IF IT CONFLICTS WITH THEIR MORALITY, THEN IT BECOMES AN ISSUE. THAT IS WHEN ONLY THE DESIRE IS BEING FOLLOWED. Considering what i've just said how else can you say this is wrong?
otherwise why not marry the guy/girl? Is it simply a finance issue, or is it more than that?
It could be finance, it could be that the individuals are not seeking anything long term, it could be various other reasons.
You are saying that because they refuse to marry, they are being selfish? Because they do not restrict sex untill marriage they are being selfish? How are they being selfish when they are not harming anyone else and they both agree to this?This subject could have a million ifs and buts, how can you genuinely be sure this person takes you seriously, they dont want to commit to a relationship other than sex? They dont want marriage then what the hell do they want to fulfil their desires? Arent we told about people who take up their desire as their Lords and warned about it?
Ok so basically your saying that you shouldn't enter a relationship just for sex and that if you do so, theres a chance that you could take your desire as your lord. On what grounds? Two people get in a relationship just so they could fulfill their desire of let's say singing to each other. Have they taken their desire as their lord??
You become a slave to your desire when you reject your moral principles for your desire. Thus if the two who entered a relationship just so they could sing to one another and by singing they have gone against their moral principles, then they have possibley taken their desire as their lord. The same could be said about sex. I think (not sure just making a guess) the issue here is that you see the act of sex as someting that's bad initself regardless of wether it goes against prinicples or not. So even if i describe the least controversial scenario of premarrital sex, you would still reject it on the basis that why don't they just wait untill their married and that they are being selfish and giving into their desire if they don't.
The last sentence made me laugh lol so having some fun = controlling desire more like feeding it and partaking in it? Food is good yeh? but we muslims cant eat pig meat though if you agree that you want to eat pig meat youre not harming anyone, what is the wrong in that?
Ye i guess it was a pretty funny link but relevant. If you have sex every 2 hours (though impossible), most likely you'll get bored of it or just lose the desire to have sex for a while. This is regardless of wether your in a marriage or not. If your in a marriage and you have sex too much, then you have transgressed and most likely you will not have the same passion or enjoymen as you could have. This is what i was trying to convey.
As for swine, it is clearly forbidden to us muslims.
Premarrital sex is not Could you provide a reasonable verse for this?Probably, though as a muslim you know you have the responsibility of your own child whether you divorce the wife or not. Generally people wont marry an idiot, usually they marry someone because they have feelings, trust them or have some sort of traits, attributes, compatibility they like. Fall outs happen because humans are weak people arent always just. A guy isnt always at fault.
Mostly agreed.
Premarital relations are abused, you said fun who said marriage cant be fun? if premarital relations are solely about fun well that doesnt seem so ethical it seems to be a life just about sex.
I certainly did not say marriage can't be fun. I though it was meant to be fun, fulfilling, beautiful and so on. Ok for less controversy let us assume a premarital sexual relation where sex is not the focal point. The focal point is how well the two get along. Note that this does not mean no sex. Sex will happen about eeeehhhh lets say once every two weeks (just to make sure their not transgressing angel Now would still say this is wrong???
-
Peace simple
I have to say this is the most anti quran, anti islam, anti peace thing anybody could have sugested.
Why is that?
Would anybody here want to marry someone whom you know was having sexual relation without hesitation with others? they might just carry on with it after they are married as well, like one who starts smoking, how hard is it to give it up!
They may and they may not.
070.001
YUSUFALI A questioner asked about a Penalty to befall-
PICKTHAL A questioner questioned concerning the doom about to fall
SHAKIR One demanding, demanded the chastisement which must befall
070.002
YUSUFALI The Unbelievers, the which there is none to ward off,-
PICKTHAL Upon the disbelievers, which none can repel,
SHAKIR The unbelievers-- there is none to avert it--.
Relevance ???
070.029
YUSUFALI And those who guard their chastity,
PICKTHAL And those who preserve their chastity
SHAKIR And those who guard their private parts,
070.030
YUSUFALI Except with their wives and the (captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (then) they are not to be blamed,
PICKTHAL Save with their wives and those whom their right hands possess, for thus they are not blameworthy;
SHAKIR Except in the case of their wives or those whom their right hands possess-- for these surely are not to be blamed,Good quote
004.024
YUSUFALI Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess Thus hath Allah ordained (Prohibitions) against you Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property,- desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.This verse is subject to marriage only. It does not relate to MMA.
peace
-
The first limitation I will explain via the following Verses of 235-6
235 And they keep covered their private parts.
236 Except around their spouses (azwaaj), or those who are maintained by their oaths (ma malakat aymanukum), they are free from blame.
237 But whoever seeks anything beyond this, then these are the transgressors.The verse 235 is mistranslated. The verse is not about COVERING, but about protecting one's sexual intercourse. The verses are clear in prohibiting extramarital affairs.
Peace,
Edip -
Peace simple
Why is that?
because the quran is against it 100%
They may and they may not.
Well the quran thinks they will that is why their punishment is half.
Relevance ???
all these ayah's go together look the context of the sura and the ayah's.
070.001
YUSUFALI A questioner asked about a Penalty to befall-
PICKTHAL A questioner questioned concerning the doom about to fall
SHAKIR One demanding, demanded the chastisement which must befall
070.002
YUSUFALI The Unbelievers, the which there is none to ward off,-
PICKTHAL Upon the disbelievers, which none can repel,
SHAKIR The unbelievers-- there is none to avert it--
.
.
.
070.029
YUSUFALI And those who guard their chastity,
PICKTHAL And those who preserve their chastity
SHAKIR And those who guard their private parts,
070.030
YUSUFALI Except with their wives and the (captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (then) they are not to be blamed,
PICKTHAL Save with their wives and those whom their right hands possess, for thus they are not blameworthy;
SHAKIR Except in the case of their wives or those whom their right hands possess-- for these surely are not to be blamed,Good quoteThis verse is subject to marriage only. It does not relate to MMA.
there are no slaves in the ayah and neither the quran - or is that who you like to do it with?
let me translate it - make it a little understandable.
YUSUFALI Except with their partners whom they have undertaken by oath,- for (then) they are not to be ....
peace
-
Sorry NIMNIMAK,
This makes more sense; the ayah's seem to be a continuous theme of a sort;
070.019
YUSUFALI Truly man was created very impatient;-
070.020
YUSUFALI Fretful when evil touches him;
070.021
YUSUFALI And niggardly when good reaches him;-
070.022
YUSUFALI Not so those devoted to Prayer;-
.
.
.
070.026
YUSUFALI And those who hold to the truth of the Day of Judgment;
070.027
YUSUFALI And those who fear the displeasure of their Lord,-
070.028
YUSUFALI For their Lord's displeasure is the opposite of Peace and Tranquillity;-
070.029
YUSUFALI And those who guard their chastity,
070.030
Except with their partners whom they have undertaken by oath,- for (then) they are not to be blamed,
070.031
YUSUFALI But those who trespass beyond this are transgressors;-the sura is outlining those of the garden and the opposites- i think, lets be of those of the garden.
God Bless.
-
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/004.%20An%20Nisa/temp%2014%20%204.24b.gif
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/004.%20An%20Nisa/temp%2014%20%204.24c.gif
And women other than the identified ones have been made permissible for you so that you sincerely seek them with your wealth in the manner of those who seek women to take them in the protective fold /to make them a pearl of their life/home; and not for seeking them with wealth in the manner of debauch men for sexual lust/merely for flowing out the "water".Does this basic principle leave any roon for anyone to have sex with a woman except enganging her in marriage/Nikah?
-
The believers are... those who protect their sexual organs except from their spouses... Therefore, whosoever seeks more beyond that , then they are the transgressors." (235-6)
?Those who invoke not, with Allah, any other god, nor slay such life as God has made sacred, except for just cause, nor commit fornication; and any that does this (not only) meets punishment (but) the Penalty on the Day of Judgment will be doubled to him, and he will dwell therein in ignominy.?
(Al-Furqan, 2568-69). -
The verse 235 is mistranslated. The verse is not about COVERING, but about protecting one's sexual intercourse. The verses are clear in prohibiting extramarital affairs.
Peace,
EdipSalam Edip
I would have thought that covering is a form of protection. But cover and protect are different so I will agree. It says protect/guard the private part (literally) even if we take it to mean protect your sexual intercourse (which i take it to be part of the meaning as there's more to protecting those parts then just not using them for sex), we still have to accept that the MMA and azwaaj are an exception to this protection. Which is PARTLY why I argue for the possibility of sex with MMA.
Where are the verses that make sex exclusive to marriages? So far the arguments that some have put up for the above question is that the Quran gives instructions with respect to marriage that implies that sex is acceptable within marriage. This can be seen in the verses which focus on divorce.
The problem i see with this argument
- Everyone approaches this with the preconcieved notion that sex is automatically forbidden to all except marriage. No one seems to consider the possibility that this idea (i'm not sure where from the Quran they get this perhaps the concept of chastity in which i will expand on in another post today Godwilling) is wrong and God did not actually prohobit this Everyone automatically sees sex as something bad and they put a prohibitation stamp on it just like that! Thus people think that because there are no verses that give similar implications about sex with respect with the MMA, it is forbidden EVEN THOUGH the Quran is clear that the azwaaj AND the MMA are an EXcEPTION to the protection of the private parts and EVEN THOUGH the Quran has placed restrictions and limitations for sex.
Bro Edip i know you to be very busy. Thus i do not expect any further replies from you but your contribution to this topic (if you find time) will be appreciated. I feel that i do have a strong argument here so long as people approach it WITHOUT the preconcieved notion that sex is bad UNLESS done in marriage. I am arguing that under CERTAIN CONDITIONS, sex outside marriage is completely fine. The spectrum is controversial but some cases at the positive end which have less controvorsy are 95% clear to me to be not forbidden neither by the heart, reason nor by the Quran.
Peace
-
Salam Simple
because the quran is against it 100%
I could claim the Quran is against yoga 100% evidence is needed my friend.
Have a look at my reply to Edip. I think (i could be wrong) that you see premarital sex as a bad in itself.Well the quran thinks they will that is why their punishment is half.
If God thought that they would, would God permit it in the first place? Perhaps God would for some reasons unknown to me just like our creation was objected to by the Angels. But the verse you speak of is about Marriage. Not about MMA.
there are no slaves in the ayah and neither the quran - or is that who you like to do it with?
nope
I never took MMA to mean slaves.070.019
YUSUFALI Truly man was created very impatient;-
070.020
YUSUFALI Fretful when evil touches him;
070.021
YUSUFALI And niggardly when good reaches him;-
070.022
YUSUFALI Not so those devoted to PrayerMy dear friend how do you see this relate to sex with MMA. In the sense that one is being hasty and impatient? THE SAME COULD BE SAID FOR MARRIAGES OR ANYTHING ELSE. Man could be impatient towards continuing his commitment to upholding the Salat. Man could be impatient and rush towards marriage.
In this case you are automatically assuming that premarital sex = Impatience regardless of context and the individuals
Assume i do the same with Marriage and think anyone who gets married is being hasty. THAT'S NOT THE CASE. SOME PEOPLE MAY BE HASTY TOWARDS MARRIAGE SOME WILL NOT. It depends on context and the individuals070.026
YUSUFALI And those who hold to the truth of the Day of Judgment;
070.027
YUSUFALI And those who fear the displeasure of their Lord,-
070.028
YUSUFALI For their Lord's displeasure is the opposite of Peace and Tranquillity;-
070.029
YUSUFALI And those who guard their chastity,
070.030
Except with their partners whom they have undertaken by oath,- for (then) they are not to be blamed,
070.031
YUSUFALI But those who trespass beyond this are transgressors;-the sura is outlining those of the garden and the opposites- i think, lets be of those of the garden.
Indeed.
Master of the day of judgment. You alone we serve and you alone we ask for help. Guide us to the straght path.But let me emphasise something from what you have quoted
YUSUFALI And those who guard their chastity,
070.030
Except with their partners whom they have undertaken by oath,- for (then) they are not to be blamed,If the translation is as you say it is, my whole argument would collapse and i would acknoweldge what you say. But i think the word OR is crucial
Except on (to) their spouses or what their rights/oaths owned/possessed , so they truly are not blameworthy/blamed.
peace
-
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/004.%20An%20Nisa/temp%2014%20%204.24b.gif
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/004.%20An%20Nisa/temp%2014%20%204.24c.gif
And women other than the identified ones have been made permissible for you so that you sincerely seek them with your wealth in the manner of those who seek women to take them in the protective fold /to make them a pearl of their life/home; and not for seeking them with wealth in the manner of debauch men for sexual lust/merely for flowing out the "water".Does this basic principle leave any roon for anyone to have sex with a woman except enganging her in marriage/Nikah?
Yes
For a moment assume that sex is not bad outside of marriage untill proven to you otherwise Quranically.
Now i will explain
The verse is clear that to approach MARRIAGE with sex PRIMARILY in mind is wrong. Sex isn't wrong. I will emphasise again that sex isn't wrong but to think that marriage is JUST about sex is wrong. As you know marriage is a very serious commitment. Any idiot who approachs a marraige purely for sex that marriage will not last (most likely). Marriage is different to the conept of MMA which i am arguing for.Does this answer your question?
-
Salam Nimnimak
one may think having sex with someone even if they agree is contradicting morals. Sex is more like sacred not bad how you're thinking i'm perceiving it.
Quote
Dress code isn?t totally subjective, it states what is necessary.Same with premarital sex.
I disagree.
You have no other tool to use in life. Everything goes through the heart and reason. Individuals are responsible for using these tools given to them as correctly as possible and to the best of their abillity. That means IMPARTIALLITY and openmindedness and the refusal to manipulate your own reason to suite your desire. You will be held accountable for such misuses.
people don't intentionally manipulate their reasoning, well maybe some do but it's still possible to make errors with our logic/reason even though we weren't intending it
Ok so basically your saying that you shouldn't enter a relationship just for sex and that if you do so, theres a chance that you could take your desire as your lord. On what grounds? Two people get in a relationship just so they could fulfill their desire of let's say singing to each other. Have they taken their desire as their lord??
hmm.. maybe what makes you think sex is ok? that you can un-guard your frj in front of MMA but frj does not = sex? so how is that so?
anyway some thoughts
Sex as bad before marriage could be a preconceived notion probably and it is also a western ideology that sex is ok. Even a teacher told us at school once ?try before you buy? I thought that was pretty shallow and bad advice for teenage girls.. though ideologies are everywhere.
Before I did think that relationships were ok or a possibility but I?ve come to think otherwise. The claim seems weak because why is there no indication of a waiting period for the MMA?s after breaking off the relationship??? They wouldn?t need one because well they wouldn?t be engaging in sex what other logic is there?
I could have a Female MMA it doesn?t mean I can have sexual relations with her.
God didn?t actually halalify premarital sex either.
No one is saying sex is bad, almost everything is good and bad depending on the context.
If sex was really ok why aren?t MMA?s given the criteria of a waiting period if the relationship ends? Why is marriage promoted? Why do married women need to wait? What makes MMA relationships free off the hook? To me this holds stronger arguments against premarital (sexual) relationships.
-
Salam Sarah
I'm Nima by the wayone may think having sex with someone even if they agree is contradicting morals. Sex is more like sacred not bad how you're thinking i'm perceiving it.
IF they think like that, then two things should happen IMO. Justify why they think that (sex contraditing morals) without bias. Then if they think it's not contradicting morals, they should check to make sure it's not forbidden in AQ then not prohibit it to themselves. but if they think it contradicts morals (after justifying why it contradicts morals in an unbiased manner) then they should prohibit it upon themselves.
So if you do see sex as sacred or see it as contradicting morals and you do this without pre-concieved notions and bias (one possible moral contradiction IMO is that you could unintentionally hurt someone) then God bless you keep away from sex untill you do marry.
people don't intentionally manipulate their reasoning, well maybe some do but it's still possible to make errors with our logic/reason even though we weren't intending it
Of course it is possible to make errors with those tools. We are not God. Same as it is possible to make errors with translations and interpretaions from Quran.
I have come across this argument quiet a few times. Ultimately, you have to use those faculties and they are your only tool to acknowledge the Quran to understand it and so on. This applies to life. You are responsible for doing your best to use them. If you make a mistake you can justify yourself i you did not ignore them. But if you ignored them or misused/manipulate them, you cannot justify yourself.Could you ever in the sight of God argue that though my faculties which you gave me disagreed with it i still prohibited myself something.
NOTE that this is different to something like the swine example. With Swine, it is CLEARLY forbidden in AQ. I hope to justify forbidding swine upon myself in the sight of God by the following argument
With the faculties you gave me, i used them to acknowledge all the verses in AQ to be divine (code 19) though it was as clear as day that eating swine is not wrong (when contrasted with other harmful foods that were not forbidden) it was too clear to me in AQ that it was forbidden thus based on my acknowledgement of AQ i did what i did. Furthermore i was not harming anyone else by doing what i did ( i say this because though lashing (for adultery) is clear in AQ, i would never carry it out for it is 100% against my heart but most importantly i would be harming someone ALOT where as with forbidding swine, i harm no one and it's not that big an issue)
The lashing issue is beside the point and i am aware of arguments in which it is not for infliciting pain based on a certain word in the verse which implies this(can't remember) I use it to show an example of justification.
anyway some thoughts
Sex as bad before marriage could be a preconceived notion probably and it is also a western ideology that sex is ok. Even a teacher told us at school once try before you buy I thought that was pretty shallow and bad advice for teenage girls.. though ideologies are everywhere.
EXACTLY. That's why we have to get to the truth without BIAS!
Before I did think that relationships were ok or a possibility but Ive come to think otherwise. The claim seems weak because why is there no indication of a waiting period for the MMAs after breaking off the relationship??? They wouldnt need one because well they wouldnt be engaging in sex what other logic is there?
See my reply to Mazhar. If it fails to answer your question, ask me again an i'l hopefully provide a more detailed answer if you need.
I could have a Female MMA it doesnt mean I can have sexual relations with her.
I KNOW. Nor does it mean that you can't. Unless stated or Clearly implied otherwise in AQ.
I do not mean to make assumotions please forgive me for saying. But have you read all of my article in detail? I understand that it could not become clear enough in one read but just want to know do you think you gave it sufficient time? I would not be upset or offended if you have not. I just want to know
God didnt actually halalify premarital sex either.
True but God did not haramify it either.
No one is saying sex is bad, almost everything is good and bad depending on the context.
handshakeIf sex was really ok why arent MMAs given the criteria of a waiting period if the relationship ends? Why is marriage promoted? Why do married women need to wait? What makes MMA relationships free off the hook? To me this holds stronger arguments against premarital (sexual) relationships.
Please look at my reply to Mazhar and if you think that it is insufficient, let me know so I have a chance of better explaining.
peace
-
The believers are... those who protect their sexual organs except from their spouses... Therefore, whosoever seeks more beyond that , then they are the transgressors." (235-6)
?Those who invoke not, with Allah, any other god, nor slay such life as God has made sacred, except for just cause, nor commit fornication; and any that does this (not only) meets punishment (but) the Penalty on the Day of Judgment will be doubled to him, and he will dwell therein in ignominy.?
(Al-Furqan, 2568-69).Salam Afridi
235-6. except from their spouses OR mma
2568Zina Adultery. I see it as someone who is married who has sex outsied of this marriage.
peace
-
Salam Nima
Lol off course I read what you wrote that?s not to say I don?t have a thick skull but seriously I can see what you are saying I?m just sharing an opposing view.
So if you do see sex as sacred or see it as contradicting morals and you do this without pre-concieved notions and bias (one possible moral contradiction IMO is that you could unintentionally hurt someone) then God bless you keep away from sex untill you do marry.
Lol thanks for the advice, if I get married sure.
Well we?re trying to get to the truth but you?ve already concluded an answer.
You?re reply to Mazhar was
Yes
For a moment assume that sex is not bad outside of marriage untill proven to you otherwise Quranically.
Now i will explain
The verse is clear that to approach MARRIAGE with sex PRIMARILY in mind is wrong. Sex isn't wrong. I will emphasise again that sex isn't wrong but to think that marriage is JUST about sex is wrong. As you know marriage is a very serious commitment. Any idiot who approachs a marraige purely for sex that marriage will not last (most likely). Marriage is different to the conept of MMA which i am arguing for.Does this answer your question?
No one is saying approach marriage with sex but rather marriage allows for that avenue in a halal/permissible approach. Another thought came to me. We are garments of one another (spouses) 2187? Why isn?t that in regards to MMA? This gives a stronger implication that mma isn?t about sex or ok for sex.
The concept of MMA to me isn?t just purely about relationships like dating, premarital sexual stuff. But my impression of your thought is because the frj can be unprotected in their presence then it would mean sex is ok?
If mma?s have no rules in terms of relationships well who would want to get married? why is marriage better? What is the difference with mma and marriage?
Peace
-
Salam Sarah
Lol off course I read what you wrote that?s not to say I don?t have a thick skull P but seriously I can see what you are saying I?m just sharing an opposing view.
;D
Well we?re trying to get to the truth but you?ve already concluded an answer.
I have not concluded yet. I am hoping that no one has as that will keep the mind open and impartial. I have come up with an argument. The argument concludes an answer. I cannot conclude untill i hear opposing views and address them. If i fail....then i reject premarital sex.
No one is saying approach marriage with sex but rather marriage allows for that avenue in a halal/permissible approach. Another thought came to me. We are garments of one another (spouses) 2187? Why isn?t that in regards to MMA? This gives a stronger implication that mma isn?t about sex or ok for sex.
The verses that are about marriage are for marriage alone You can't related them to MMAs. You keep doing this )
I'l explain in a seperate post where i hope to also address the topic of chastity as these seem to be where the greatest objections arise from.The concept of MMA to me isn?t just purely about relationships like dating, premarital sexual stuff. But my impression of your thought is because the frj can be unprotected in their presence then it would mean sex is ok?
Yes. But you forget my argument about the subjective restrictions in AQ.
If mma?s have no rules in terms of relationships well who would want to get married? why is marriage better? What is the difference with mma and marriage?
Isn't that answer clear? To start a family. To live with someone for the rest of your life. To show the person you are with or the one you choose how much you love them by proposing to spend the rest of your life with them.
In mma this ranges from the
bottom of the spectrum in which it's just about sex and fun.
The middle of the spectrum which could be about getting to know someone and trying to live them
to the top of the spectrum in which all the above is in place apart from status "married"I know you would argue something like Those in the middle and top of the spectrum. Can't they wait untill their married before they fulfil their selfish sexual desire? Just in case you put up a similar argument My answer would be
Why is it selfish desire? Replace sex with any kind of physical contact and imagine that you thought you can't even kiss or hold hands together untill you are married EVEN THOUGH IT DOES NOT FEEL WRONG BECAUSE YOU HAVE BEEN TOGETHER FOR SO LONG and EVEN THOUGH it is NOT prohibited in AQ.
Couples who are close enough and feel comfortable enough to have sex should restrain because... It is a selfish desire? says who though?
peace
-
Yes
For a moment assume that sex is not bad outside of marriage untill proven to you otherwise Quranically.
Now i will explain
The verse is clear that to approach MARRIAGE with sex PRIMARILY in mind is wrong. Sex isn't wrong. I will emphasise again that sex isn't wrong but to think that marriage is JUST about sex is wrong. As you know marriage is a very serious commitment. Any idiot who approachs a marraige purely for sex that marriage will not last (most likely). Marriage is different to the conept of MMA which i am arguing for.Does this answer your question?
If you had given a little time to know and understand the meanings of individual words of the verse perhaps you might not have said this. The restriction is with regard to all women. Any permissible woman has to be sought in the manner of Mohseneena whose conduct and approach is diametrically opposite to Musafeheena--those who do sex for momentarily release of ........and excitement.
-
Salam Nima
The verses that are about marriage are for marriage alone You can't related them to MMAs. You keep doing this
I'l explain in a seperate post where i hope to also address the topic of chastity as these seem to be where the greatest objections arise from.Ok I know they are for marriage alone, that is my point. The openness of relation is open in marriage no such speculation is given for MMAs. maybe a collection of verses in regards to mmas should be sorted to see what is addressed for them?
Isn't that answer clear? To start a family. To live with someone for the rest of your life. To show the person you are with or the one you choose how much you love them by proposing to spend the rest of your life with them.
So mmas are only temporary commitments? Wow this is scarily sounding like muta lol or even misyar.
If you can have sex with mma then children are a possibility. If its just fun what happens to responsibility when a kid arrives?
Lots of people get married before committing into sexual/physical relations it is possible.
its just a desire, its selfish if it proceeds over what is right. Its not bluntly prohibited and its not bluntly permissible. Though as I said in the verses strictly about married couples, why would they have rules and openness explained but not MMA's if sexual relations are allowed? My opinion is the argument for MMAs appears to be weak. the only argument you seem to have is about f-rj.
Couples who are close enough and feel comfortable enough to have sex should restrain because... It is a selfish desire? says who though?
Says me until proven that it's halal.
-
Peace all
peaceThis is an article i wrote. My first on a topic in Quran. If you read it, please let me know what you think
The purpose of this article is to argue against the widely accepted belief that the Quran prohibits sex before marriage. I intend to do this by using the Quran to justify a case of pre-marital sex where it is acceptable in the light of the Quran.
Unless you take the root Zay-Nun-Ya or Fa-Ha-Shin to literally mean premarital sex, the prohibition of sex before marriage is not stated in the Quran. There are also no verses in the Quran where sex is made exclusive to marriages. Thus sex is not exclusive to marriages and can be done outside of wedlock. The fact that sex is not explicitly prohibited does not mean that it is ok to have sex with anyone under any circumstance. The Quran places restrictions and limitations which prevent such a scenario. There are two limitations which I will point out
The first limitation I will explain via the following Verses of 235-6
235 And they keep covered their private parts.
236 Except around their spouses (azwaaj), or those who are maintained by their oaths (ma malakat aymanukum), they are free from blame.
237 But whoever seeks anything beyond this, then these are the transgressors.From these verses, it is clear that none should have access to the private parts except the following two categories Spouses (Azwaaj) and those who are committed to you by oaths (ma malakat aymanukum) Thus SO FAR sex can only be done with those two categories of people. However this presents us with a problem as anyone could be committed to an individual by oath. Thus theoretically if an orphan is committed to you by oath.....then he can have access to your private parts.
This is where the second limitation comes inFa-Ha-Shin which has the possible following meanings
became excessive/immoderate/enormous/exorbitant/overmuch/beyond measure, foul/bad/evil/unseemly/indecency/abominable, lewd/gross/obscene, committing excess which is forbidden, transgress the bounds/limits, avaricious, adultery/fornication.An example of the usage of Fa-Ha-Shin can be seen in 1732 And do not come near adultery, for it is lewdness and an evil path.
If we take lewdness into account, then it becomes clear that showing your private parts to an orphan who is committed to you by oath is forbidden (unless you have a really good and un-lewd reason to do so which is very unlikely) Thus (though highly unlikely) no one can claim that they were showing their private parts to their orphan and then justify themselves with verses such as 235-6. Such an act will go strongly against reason and heart in which their justification becomes invalid just by that alone. Nevertheless for the purposes of this article, it is an act of lewdness indicated by reason and heart and thus prohibited by the Quran. Thus this takes out the possibility of all gross acts such as the example given.
I will now discuss some of the possible objections to my argument.One possible objection to my argument, is the following verse 2433
And let those who are not able to marry continue to be chaste until God enriches them of His Bounty. And if those who are maintained by your oaths seek to consummate the marriage, then document it with them if you find that they are ready, and give them from the wealth of God which He has bestowed upon you. And do not force your young women to need if they have desired to be independent, in order that you may make a gain in the goods of this worldly life. And if anyone has compelled them, then for their compulsion, God is Forgiving, Merciful.
It requests of those who are unable to marry to remain chaste implying that they should not have sex until they have married. I disagree with this translation and understanding for the following reason
If we look at a word by word translation, the word chaste actually isn?t there. What?s actually used is abstain. But his could mean to abstain from something different to sex such as abstaining from unlawful sex and not sex as a whole.
Another possible objection
It may be argued that the permission to expose the private parts to those you are committed to by oath given in the Quran does not include the permission to have sex. This is not the case as in order for something to be prohibited, it needs to be stated in the Quran. If it is not stated, then it is not prohibited and as sex is not prohibited beyond the limits already discussed, then it is permitted. Consider the following If we are to say that the private parts (in the case of those who are committed to an individual by oath) are for exposure only and nothing more, then this becomes problematic. Imagine a surgeon attempting to operate on an individual?s private part. The surgeon can see the private part of the individual as the surgeon is committed to the individual by oath however the surgeon will not be able to go beyond seeing the private part (even though the individual has consented to operating on the private part) and thus be unable to a operate on the individual. This would be the case if we were to accept that the private parts can only be exposed and nothing more can be done to them.Moving on....
The concept of lewdness is subjective. What may appear lewd to an individual may appear normal to another. Consider a one night stand. Some will consider the act as lewd and some will think it acceptable. Topics such as a one night stand are controversial and open to debate. However when the act of sex is done between a couple who are both morally upright and are comfortable with each other and are not rushing one another and it does not go against their reason and heart prior to the act, then I see no controversy in such a case. I doubt that in such a case there is any lewdness. If anyone objects to this, please indicate the lewdness you pick out from this.In conclusion, pre-marital sex is not prohibited in the Quran. There are clear limitations and subjective limitations. Issues such as a one night stand may possibly be justified in the light of the Quran. As outrageous as this claim may appear to some, I truly believe that it may hold some truth.
The end.
Some addiotional points
In a discussion with a friend, when attempting to argue against one night stands, I could not get anywhere as his argument was clearly the more reasonable and stronger. I will present a revised summary of our discussion What could be wrong with two healthy (no disabilities such as down-syndrome or any influence of alcohol) and responsible people agreeing to have sex on one night even though they have just met on the night? I responded by saying that that would make sex meaningless and without passion. But would it necessarily do this? I cannot tell. And even if it does, how could it be wrong when both have agreed to it and it?s not harming anyone else? (please note this was an argument with my friend which I have attempted to summarise. What I have written down isn?t exactly what was said but rather the key points pointed out and discussed. My purpose of this example was to show the importance of reason and how someone like my friend could justify himself in the sight of God)
I could not answer him and considered that he might be right and that my rejection of his view is purely based on my upbringing and not of my reasoning. My heart did object to it at first but I tried to view the act in a different and more positive light in order to be unbiased, and my heart did not object to it anymore. Before i was viewing this act in a negative light and that is why i believe my heart objected to it then. But both scenarios that i attmepted to comprehend can take place in reality. The negative more likely to occure then the positive. I dislike the idea of a one night stand personally.
If I am not mistaken, virginity in the Iranian culture is seen as a good thing and I believe that this is similar amongst Quranists. Ironically virginity in some places and in the sight of some people is seen as a bad thing. With the use of reason and the Quran, hopefully we will get to the truth.
peace
peace,
Pardon me brother if my input has been discussed in these thread I have limited time to read through the whole thread so I decided to just make this timely reply.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 about them, but do not meet them
secretly, unless you have something righteous to say. And do not
consummate the marriage until the book interim is reached. And
know that God knows what is in your souls, so be aware of Him,
and know that God is Forgiving, Compassionate.2235From this verse it clear that even those we propose to marry with serious intention we are to hold righteous talk with if the need arise for us to meet in secret and we advise here not to have sex with her ( i.e. do not consumate the marriage) until after marriage ( i.e.until the book interim is reached).
My understanding here is that pre-marital sex is not allowed even in serious relatioship.
Marriage is the only license with have to have sex with opposite sex, other than sex outside of marriage is fornication, except perhaps you may wish to enlighten me on this.
Thanks,
Kaamil -
Salam Simple
But let me emphasise something from what you have quoted
If the translation is as you say it is, my whole argument would collapse and i would acknoweldge what you say. But i think the word OR is crucialExcept on (to) their spouses or what their rights/oaths owned/possessed , so they truly are not blameworthy/blamed.
peace
Salaams Br,
Check the dictionary and you will see what the or is, this translation is more or less right.
And what is MMA to you?
i have to ask, don't be offended.
If your Mother was devorced and does it with people or sister before marriage or your daughter how would you feel??especialy if any of them accidently becomes pregnant while unmarried, and if they are livivng in a country like Pakistan wow
and you are argueing for it, God allmighty , one shouldn't take their desires to such an extreme never, look at the purity of others close to you.
Thanks Br.
-
If you had given a little time to know and understand the meanings of individual words of the verse perhaps you might not have said this. The restriction is with regard to all women. Any permissible woman has to be sought in the manner of Mohseneena whose conduct and approach is diametrically opposite to Musafeheena--those who do sex for momentarily release of ........and excitement.
Peace Mazhar
Can you provide the verse number please? I cannot look at it in detail otherwise. I commented on what i read in your post and from that I said what I said.