How sex before Marriage is not haram (prohibited) according to the Quran

[unknownuser]

Hi Nima,

the "or" doesn't always mean "or" like in english, sometimes it can means "or rather" check a dictionary.

here are a couple of example for you to consider;

2200
So when ye have accomplished your holy rites, celebrate the praises of Allah, as ye used to celebrate the praises of your fathers,- yea, with far more Heart and soul. There are men who say "Our Lord! Give us (Thy bounties) in this world!" but they will have no portion in the Hereafter.

where is the or above?

2182
But if anyone fears partiality or wrong-doing on the part of the testator, and makes peace between (The parties concerned), there is no wrong in him For Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

And here wrong doing overtakes partiality as it covers partiality as well.

Just like "your partners or rather those you have undertaken by way of an oath".

Believe you me religions don't allow such a thing as its detrimental to society.

hypno

[SarahY]

They can be temporary or long-term.
What's muta or misyar?

What gives you that idea?
Muta is temporary marriages, shias do it. Misyar is another form of temporary marriage some sunnis do it.

So what happens if condoms that work 100% exist. Would it then be ok to have pre-marital sex?

It can?t be 100% because there is always a possibility. Lol no it won?t be ok P having or not having children isn?t the ice breaker.

My argument rests on if it's not haram then it's halal D can you provide an exmaple where this is not the case. Can you think of something that's against heart and reason that's not forbidden in the Quran (a complete book)

Not sure, can you? other than this?

I guess I?ll wait for your thoughts/arguments

Peace

[Mazhar]

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.

Itwas referred in your reply 14. Pl read the verse there.

[Bigmo]

What is the difference between a wife or a girlfriend?

A couple of witnesses and a few paper work?

I think that this argument is not looking at it from a human relationship point of view which is what sex is about. Having sex with a prostitute for example is not the same as having sex with a partner of some sort. A prostitute does not care about your behavior but a wife and girlfriend does. This is because there is an oath between the two of you and this oath is "just like I do not want you to cheat on me, then i also won't cheat on you". It does not make a difference between a wife or girfriend. Wife is a legal arrangement and perhaps a social function, but morally cheating cause harm and pain to somebody else and creates distrust. It does not matter whether she is a wife or girlfriend. Marriage does provide more assurances for a couple that something is serious. But not all marriages are such.

Thats how i look at it. Its about relationship between two people. Now of course if your wife does not mind you sleeping around and you don't mind her sleeping around then i guess you can do as you please. But you ain't going to find too many couple like that. Thats how I read the verses.

But to say that there is a profound difference between two partners who are married and two who are not is not accurate. They are legally different but even then many societies eleminated those two differences easily. Thats because the only difference is a bunch of paper work. No more or less. Its a legal issue and not a moral difference. Cheating and betrayal is cheating and betrayal. Sex is an intimate act between two people and human relationship dictates whats moral and not. Prostitution is a business transaction and in that case the issue is very different. Now if you have a girlfiend or a wife and mess with a protitute then its is also a sin. Cause how would you(a man) feel if your woman had sex with a male escort service behind your back?

As they say, cheating often requires lying and concealing. Whether its with a wife or girlfriend. A bunch of paper work is not going to make it more acceptable.

Do to others how you want them to do to you.

The real question is why won't people get married? Thats the question we should ask since it might tell us about their ultimate intention. From experience, it has to do with the legal framework or perhaps many don't bother. Seperating between the two would only convince a partner that is OK to cheat on any girl as long as she is not my wife or husband. He or she will learn fast it ain't going to make much difference if one of them gets caught. One will call it divorce. The other breaking up. Only difference is a bunch of paper work. That paper work is based on human understanding and does not always reflect morality. Just make the girlfriend also legal. End of story. See how fictitous the difference is.

Many Muslim men go out of their societies and think they can do what they want since many societies have this girlfriend boyfriend thing. They learn quickly it ain't what they thought it was. Cause there ain't no difference. And to prove that here is some professional research

http//paa2005.princeton.edu/download.aspx?submissionId=51389

The message. A cheater is a cheater. And how he behaves prior to a marriage is how he will probably behave if he gets married. A bunch of paper work won't change anything. A person's prior habits before marriage is THE MOST important indicator of his behavior if he evers signs a bunch of paper work thinking now its different. It ain't.

Also this about cheating in schools

Study Once a Cheater, Always a Cheater
By Debra Viadero on October 30, 2009 934 AM | 4 Comments | No TrackBacks
The next time you find yourself thinking, "kids will be kids," think again. Survey results released yesterday by the Josephson Institute on Ethics suggest that kids who cheat in high school are far more likely than non-cheaters to lie to their spouses, bosses, and employees when they grow up.

The results are based on a 2008 survey of nearly 7,000 people in five age groups 17 and under, 18-24, 25-40, 41-50, and over 50. The study found, first of all, that younger generations are far more likely to behave dishonestly than older generations?or at least to admit it to researchers. Among high schoolers, 64% said they had cheated on an exam in 2008, 42% admitted lying to save money, and 30% copped to having stolen something from a store.

The study also found that, regardless of how old they are now, people who cheated in high school were three times more likely to lie to a customer (20% vs. 6%) or inflate an insurance claim (6% vs. 2%) and more than twice as likely to inflate an expense claim (10% vs. 4%) than people who never cheated in high school. The high school cheaters were also twice as likely to lie to or deceive their boss (20% vs. 10%) or lie about their address to get a child into a better school (29% vs. 15%) and one-and-a-half times more likely to lie to spouse or significant other (35% vs. 22%) or cheat on taxes (18% vs. 13%).

If that's not reason enough to boost character education efforts in schools, here's another A growing number of studies are beginning to suggest that some character education programs can improve kids' academic achievement, too.

http//blogs.edweek.org/edweek/inside-school-research/2009/10/study_once_a_cheater_always_a.html

Although this research is too simplistic and could be biased. But it does put some light as why adultery is an ethical and moral issue. But to say thats its so because you signed some paper work and its less so if you didn't sign those paper work is naive. Cheating means you have taken some oath, whether spoken or assumed to be loyal and honest. At least to the best of your ability.

Notice the Quran in marriage emphaises living together and financial obligations. Women who sell theselves cheap are doing so at their own risk. Since men have the financial priveleges in a society and women get the burden of children. Thats what seperates the two. But its a human seperation based on law and orer. Just make the same rule apply to any couple who live together(married or not) and have birth. Women need to make the right decisions and each should carry the burden of risk equally and not always the women should carry the risk. Thats why many societies now force financial obligations on any couple. So what do people now do? They use contraception and birth control. There upon women most of the time come out losing. Its finances that seperates the two(wife versus girlfriend) so just impliment that financial obligation on any couple, whether they signed some paper works or brought two witness from the street or not.

If you have sex than the obligation is there. Because there is an oath between the two of you whether its stated in a church or mosque or not. Just cheat on a girlfriend and see what happens.

Thats my take from a moral stand point.

[SarahY]

Bigmo

Wife is a legal arrangement and perhaps a social function

We live in a social world.

Thats how i look at it. Its about relationship between two people. Now of course if your wife does not mind you sleeping around and you don't mind her sleeping around then i guess you can do as you please. But you ain't going to find too many couple like that. Thats how I read the verses.

How you look at what?

But to say that there is a profound difference between two partners who are married and two who are not is not accurate. They are legally different but even then many societies eleminated those two differences easily. Thats because the only difference is a bunch of paper work. No more or less. Its a legal issue and not a moral difference. Cheating and betrayal is cheating and betrayal. Sex is an intimate act between two people and human relationship dictates whats moral and not. Prostitution is a business transaction and in that case the issue is very different. Now if you have a girlfiend or a wife and mess with a protitute then its is also a sin. Cause how would you(a man) feel if your woman had sex with a male escort service behind your back?

It?s not necessarily just paper work. I?m not sure exactly what constitute marriage islamically.

Generally speaking a teenager/young adult is going to take a gf relationship less seriously than a marriage relationship, why do you think that is?

Cheating and betrayal has nothing to do with marriage or gf/bf relationships it has to do with ones character.

The issue isn?t cheating, divorce doesn?t just happen because of cheating. The issue is about relational limits not cheating.

They use contraception and birth control. There upon women most of the time come out losing. Its finances that seperates the two(wife versus girlfriend) so just impliment that financial obligation on any couple, whether they signed some paper works or brought two witness from the street or not.

Women don?t lose, you should see how much women win in divorce cases, especially in the muslim community living in the western society. In fact I think it?s quite sad. Women think they can reap off their husbands or ex husbands fortune while they sit on their butts doing nothing. That?s not justice.

If you have sex than the obligation is there. Because there is an oath between the two of you whether its stated in a church or mosque or not. Just cheat on a girlfriend and see what happens.

Thats my take from a moral stand point.

The moral issue isn?t cheating, the moral issue is whether sex is ok outside marriage.

so you think an oath should be made in terms of gf/bf relationship? or are you implying the oath is known and doesnt need to be stated?

[nimnimak_11]

Peace all

I will attempt to address some of the common objections stated so far on this thread in detail and in different parts. Part 1 will focus on chastity.

Here are some verses on chastity which were quoted on this thread

The first example
7029-30 And those who guard their chastity. Save with their wives and those whom their right hands possess, for thus they are not blameworthy

Why I reject this as a credible objection First of all what is translated here as chastity is actually private part between the legs. Secondly it clearly says, that the MMA and Azwaaj are an exception to such a protection.

The second example
If any of you have not the means wherewith to wed free believing women, they may wed believing girls from among those whom your right hands possess And Allah hath full knowledge about your faith. Ye are one from another Wed them with the leave of their owners, and give them their dowers, according to what is reasonable They should be chaste, not lustful, nor taking paramours when they are taken in wedlock, if they fall into shame, their punishment is half that for free women. This (permission) is for those among you who fear sin; but it is better for you that ye practise self-restraint. And Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

Why I reject this There is no chaste in that verse. It is a mistranslation. Verify for yourself by looking at the Arabic in a word by word translation.

The third example which IMO was the best objection and that?s why I included it in my article
2433 Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until Allah gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which Allah has given to you. But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is Allah, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them),

Ok Yusuf Ali has translated what is actually in Arabic abstain, to chaste. This could easily be abstain from getting married until God gives them means out of his grace. Does this not make more sense? To abstain from something that you don?t have the means for (in this case marriage) and not sex.

Another way in which chastity occurs in translations is from the following root
Ha-Sad-Nun = To be guarded, be inaccessible/unapproachable, be chaste, be strongly fortified, difficult to access, be preserved, be protected (against attack), abstain from what is not lawful nor decorous, preserve or guard a thing in places inaccessible/unapproachable, make or render a thing inaccessible or unapproachable or difficult to access, make/render a thing unattainable by reason of its height, to fortify oneself.
husun n.m. (pl. of husn) 592
hassana vb. (2) pcple. pass. 5914
ahsana vb. (4)
perf. act. 2191, 6612
impf. act. 1248, 2180
impf. pass. 425
pcple. act. 424, 55
pcple. pass. f. 424, 425, 425, 425, 55, 55, 244, 2423
tahassana vb. (5) n.vb. 2433
Lane's Lexicon, Volume 2, page 222

Some may argue that this means virgin based on the possible meaning of preserved. But as is clear, there are various meanings to this root. I will argue against why it should not mean virgin

Look at 424 particularly this part ?if you are seeking with your money to be independent?
What?s translated here as independent is actually from the root H-s-n. So does that mean that it?s only right to marry provided that we seek to be virgins within our marriage? I think not. Thus clearly we cannot take virgin as a definition.
So on the basis of that refutation so far premrital sex is ok.
Part 2 will focus on why no guidelines have been placed with respect to sex with MMA when Marriage has clear guidelines.

Please note that i am currently very busy as i have an exam on the 18th of jan plus i have other things that i must do before Thursday. Thus if i am slow with the replys, i apologise but i will do my best to keep up.

Anyway stay tuned for part 2

[nimnimak_11]

Itwas referred in your reply 14. Pl read the verse there.

There were no verse numbers.

peace

[nimnimak_11]

What gives you that idea?
Muta is temporary marriages, shias do it. Misyar is another form of temporary marriage some sunnis do it.
It cant be 100% because there is always a possibility. Lol no it wont be ok P having or not having children isnt the ice breaker.
Not sure, can you? other than this?

I guess Ill wait for your thoughts/arguments

Peace

I meant in the future if they come up with condoms that work 100% of the time P
Then there won't be an issue with child responsbility. Wait till i right up part 2 of the objection list and then let's continue discussing )

[Mazhar]

There were no verse numbers.

peace

Arabic text was there. Verse No. is 424

http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/004.%20An%20Nisa/004.%20An%20Nisa%2001..htm

includes all women, they are to be sought only in the manner described. Debauch have their own choice and considerations.

[unknownuser]

I meant in the future if they come up with condoms that work 100% of the time P
Then there won't be an issue with child responsbility. Wait till i right up part 2 of the objection list and then let's continue discussing

with respects we are all human and enjoy sex, but to doing it without getting married, i wouldn't have anything to do with such a person and would always want my kids to do like wise.

sex without marriage yuck its degrading the value of people, especialy women.

but of course some people like Nima can teach their sisters , daughters mother friends , what they think is good for them - indeed a different class altogether.

peace

[Bigmo]

Peace all

I will attempt to address some of the common objections stated so far on this thread in detail and in different parts. Part 1 will focus on chastity.

Here are some verses on chastity which were quoted on this thread

The first example
7029-30 And those who guard their chastity. Save with their wives and those whom their right hands possess, for thus they are not blameworthy

Why I reject this as a credible objection First of all what is translated here as chastity is actually private part between the legs. Secondly it clearly says, that the MMA and Azwaaj are an exception to such a protection.

The second example
If any of you have not the means wherewith to wed free believing women, they may wed believing girls from among those whom your right hands possess And Allah hath full knowledge about your faith. Ye are one from another Wed them with the leave of their owners, and give them their dowers, according to what is reasonable They should be chaste, not lustful, nor taking paramours when they are taken in wedlock, if they fall into shame, their punishment is half that for free women. This (permission) is for those among you who fear sin; but it is better for you that ye practise self-restraint. And Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

Why I reject this There is no chaste in that verse. It is a mistranslation. Verify for yourself by looking at the Arabic in a word by word translation.

The third example which IMO was the best objection and that?s why I included it in my article
2433 Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until Allah gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which Allah has given to you. But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is Allah, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them),

Ok Yusuf Ali has translated what is actually in Arabic abstain, to chaste. This could easily be abstain from getting married until God gives them means out of his grace. Does this not make more sense? To abstain from something that you don?t have the means for (in this case marriage) and not sex.

Another way in which chastity occurs in translations is from the following root
Ha-Sad-Nun = To be guarded, be inaccessible/unapproachable, be chaste, be strongly fortified, difficult to access, be preserved, be protected (against attack), abstain from what is not lawful nor decorous, preserve or guard a thing in places inaccessible/unapproachable, make or render a thing inaccessible or unapproachable or difficult to access, make/render a thing unattainable by reason of its height, to fortify oneself.
husun n.m. (pl. of husn) 592
hassana vb. (2) pcple. pass. 5914
ahsana vb. (4)
perf. act. 2191, 6612
impf. act. 1248, 2180
impf. pass. 425
pcple. act. 424, 55
pcple. pass. f. 424, 425, 425, 425, 55, 55, 244, 2423
tahassana vb. (5) n.vb. 2433
Lane's Lexicon, Volume 2, page 222

Some may argue that this means virgin based on the possible meaning of preserved. But as is clear, there are various meanings to this root. I will argue against why it should not mean virgin

Look at 424 particularly this part ?if you are seeking with your money to be independent?
What?s translated here as independent is actually from the root H-s-n. So does that mean that it?s only right to marry provided that we seek to be virgins within our marriage? I think not. Thus clearly we cannot take virgin as a definition.
So on the basis of that refutation so far premrital sex is ok.
Part 2 will focus on why no guidelines have been placed with respect to sex with MMA when Marriage has clear guidelines.

Please note that i am currently very busy as i have an exam on the 18th of jan plus i have other things that i must do before Thursday. Thus if i am slow with the replys, i apologise but i will do my best to keep up.

Anyway stay tuned for part 2

The verse says family and not owners.

[Bigmo]

Bigmo

We live in a social world.

How you look at what?

It?s not necessarily just paper work. I?m not sure exactly what constitute marriage islamically.

Generally speaking a teenager/young adult is going to take a gf relationship less seriously than a marriage relationship, why do you think that is?

Cheating and betrayal has nothing to do with marriage or gf/bf relationships it has to do with ones character.

The issue isn?t cheating, divorce doesn?t just happen because of cheating. The issue is about relational limits not cheating.

Women don?t lose, you should see how much women win in divorce cases, especially in the muslim community living in the western society. In fact I think it?s quite sad. Women think they can reap off their husbands or ex husbands fortune while they sit on their butts doing nothing. That?s not justice.

The moral issue isn?t cheating, the moral issue is whether sex is ok outside marriage.

so you think an oath should be made in terms of gf/bf relationship? or are you implying the oath is known and doesnt need to be stated?

Of course an oath is known thats why its called cheating.

As far as saying sex outside marriage, it gives the impression that the issue here is about "marriage". But what is marriage. Its two witnesses and some paper work. What makes issuel like adultery is not the sex outside marriage, its betrayal. Its placing your hands on what is somebody elses property. Saying sex outside marriage is wrong gives the impression thats its the outside marriage is the issue. However its not outside marriage thats the issue, at least not to me. Its the act of betrayal. Marriage is just a simple ritual. Its like saying 4 rika' rather than tow is the issue.

Now I am saying that there is a reason why zina is a sin. Because it affects other people. It breaks home and it brings about feelings of revenge and sometimes murder, as we know. This won't matter even if the couple are not "married". Thats all I am saying.

Plus you are right to say people do not take marriage as serious, but thats not always the case. Usually men don't cause the lack of financial obligation. This is because the state does not know who was with whom. A marriage is a state record that proves a certain relationship. But God knows these certain relationship. Most men do not tell women they care about them and even love for nothing. Its usually a pre-condition to having sex. maybe not always but usually thats the norm. They cheat for a reason because they know the consequences can mean a break up and fights. A man can easily kill a woman and vice versa whether that signed some papaers or not.

I say this because recently some Sunni clerics tried to justify marriage without a home and financial obligation. To these clerics the ritual of marriage is waht matters. But it is the same thing as casual relationship. They erefr to it as misyar marriage. This is in complete violation of the Quran. The Quran intends on marriage is living together and sharing responsibilities and finances and family. And not two witnesses and signing some papers.

Its like mocking God. This is the mindset of many Rabbis. Formality trumps the spirituality. The Quran tells us its not where we face our faces that matters. But our faith that is supported by deeds.

Nikah Misyar (Arabic &#1585 is the Sunni Muslim Nikah (Marriage) carried out via the normal contractual procedure, with the specificity that the husband and wife give up several rights by their own free will, such as living together, equal division of nights between wives in cases of polygamy, the wife's rights to housing, and maintenance money ("nafaqa&quot, and the husband's right of homekeeping, and access etc

Essentially the couple continue to live separately from each other, as before their contract, and see each other to fulfil their needs in a permissible (halaal) manner when they please

Some people consider that the misyar marriage can meet the needs of young people whose resources are too limited to settle down in a separate home; of divorcees, widows or widowers, who have their own residence and their own financial resources but cannot, or do not want to marry again according to the usual formula; and of slightly elder people who have not tasted the joys of marriage.

Islamic lawyers add that this type of marriage fits the needs of a conservative society which punishes ?zina? (fornication) and other sexual relationships which are established outside a marriage contract. Thus, some Muslim foreigners working in the Persian Gulf countries prefer to engage in the misyar marriage rather than live alone for years. Many of them are actually already married with wives and children in their home country, but they cannot bring them to the region.

Misyar Marriage in practice
In addition to the preceding cases, one can note that wealthy Arab men sometimes enter into a Misyar marriage while on vacation, in order to have sexual relations with another woman without committing the sin of zina. They usually divorce the women once their holiday is over. One should note, however, that if this is understood by both parties at the time of conclusion of the marriage contract (and this is usually the case) this would constitute a fixed time period, effectively making such a marriage invalid in Sunni law, and more akin to the Nikah Mut'ah.

The Sheikh of al-Azhar Mosque Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi and theologian Yusuf Al-Qaradawi note, in their writings and in their lectures, that a major proportion of the men who take a spouse in the framework of the misyar marriage are already married men.

Many of the men involved would not marry a second wife within the regime of normal Islamic polygamy, because of the heavy financial burdens, moral obligations & responsibilities it places on the husband. But, they opt for the option of misyar marriage when the theologians declare it licit.

Legality of misyar marriage
Contrary to widely held beliefs, misyar marriage fits within the general rules of marriage in Sunni Islamic law, on condition merely that it fulfil all the requirements of the Shariah marriage contract i.e

The agreement of both parties;
Two legal witnesses (Shahidain)
The payment by the husband to his wife of Mahr in the amount that is agreed
The absence of a fixed time period for the contract
Shuroot, Any particular stipulations which the two parties agree to include in the contract and which are in conformity with Muslim marriage law.
Moreover, as explained by the Saudi Islamic lawyer Abdullah bin Sulaiman bin Menie, a member of the Higher Council of Ulema of Saudi Arabia, the wife can denounce at any time, as she sees fit, her renunciation of her financial rights, and require of her husband that he give her all her rights, including that he live with her and provide for her financial needs ("nafaqa&quot. The husband can then either do so, or grant her a divorce.

But, if the renunciation provision is the only feature which distinguishes misyar from a standard marriage, and if it has no legal standing, does misyar represent a separate category of marriage in Muslim law?

Further, is it legitimate for Muslim notaries to include in a contract provisions which have no legal standing, although the contracting parties mistakenly believe that they are the foundations and the necessary conditions to be met for the conclusion of the contract? For that matter, if the spouses are told by the notaries, at the time of conclusion of the contract, that the renunciation clauses have no legal value, what effect would that have on the spouses' willingness to get married?

For these reasons, Professor Yusuf Al-Qaradawi observes that he does not promote this type of marriage, although he has to recognise that it is legal, since it fulfils all the requirements of the usual marriage contract. He states his preference that the clause of renunciation be not included within the marriage contract, but be the subject of a simple verbal agreement between the parties. He underlines the fact that Muslims are held by their commitments, whether they are written or verbal.

Criticism of misyar
Islamic scholars like Ibn Uthaimeen or Al-Albani claim, for their part, that misyar marriage may be legal, but not moral. They agree that the wife can at any time, reclaim the rights which she gave up at the time of contract. But, they are opposed to this type of marriage on the grounds that it contradicts the spirit of the Islamic law of marriage and that it has perverse effects on the woman, the family and the community in general.

For Al-Albani, misyar marriage may even be considered as illicit, because it runs counter to the objectives and the spirit of marriage in Islam, as described in this verse from the Quran

?And among His Signs is this, that He created for you mates from among yourselves, that ye may dwell in tranquillity with them, and He has put love and mercy between your (hearts)??

Al-Albani also underlines the social problems which result from the ?misyar? marriage, particularly in the event that children are born from this union. The children raised by their mother in a home from which the father is always absent, without reason, may suffer difficulties. The situation becomes even worse if the wife is abandoned or repudiated by her husband "misyar", with no means of subsistence, as usually happens.

As for Ibn Uthaymeen, he recognizes the legality of ?misyar? marriage from the Shariah standpoint, but considers that it should be opposed because it has been turned into a real merchandise that is being marketed on a large scale by ?marriage agencies?, with no relation to the nature of Islamic marriage

http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikah_Misyar

All I am saying we need to understand, as the case with salat, why we are doing what we do. Rituals are but rituals, and paper work are but paper work. This is what happens when "marriage becomes the issue and not a real relationship between human beings. This way what these clerics have done is negate the marriage to be exactly like a mistress relationship because it fulfilled the ritual. Hence what i am trying to say is we must look at the human side of it as the Quran does. Yes the state may not know without any legal document, but God does. I like the part Qaradawi said that a believer is held accountable whether by writing or verbal based on the accepted oath. However him being Sunni the ritual aspect won for him. This is the same Qaradawi who said anyone who does not believe that the fajr is two rika but four is a kafir. Same mind and same heart.

[nimnimak_11]

Arabic text was there. Verse No. is 424

http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/004.%20An%20Nisa/004.%20An%20Nisa%2001..htm

includes all women, they are to be sought only in the manner described. Debauch have their own choice and considerations.

Ah now i see. Perhaps i did not explain properly in my first reply to you. Let me explain by putting forward a question.
Is this verse not talking about the manner in which the women are to be sought for marriage?

peace

[nimnimak_11]

with respects we are all human and enjoy sex, but to doing it without getting married, i wouldn't have anything to do with such a person and would always want my kids to do like wise.

sex without marriage yuck its degrading the value of people, especialy women.

but of course some people like Nima can teach their sisters , daughters mother friends , what they think is good for them - indeed a different class altogether.

peace

peace

[nimnimak_11]

The verse says family and not owners.

Thank you for the clarification. Is it 100% that it can not mean master/owner? There are translations that have used the terms owner or master.

[Mazhar]

Ah now i see. Perhaps i did not explain properly in my first reply to you. Let me explain by putting forward a question.
Is this verse not talking about the manner in which the women are to be sought for marriage?

peace

It first says this And it has been made permissible for you; for what purpose they have been declared permissible and in this pursuit what one should look like/active participle those who protect, provide safe and honourably position, treat them as pearls not sex dolls and such people are the opposite of . The later act and purpose can be achieved both ways, through marriage or without marriage, sexually related girl/boy friend. But one canot be without marriage.

[nimnimak_11]

Part 2 of objections

Why there are no guidelines for MMA when there are guidelines for the married?

It is clear that there are instructions for certain situations within marriage. Some ask Why are there no similar situations for a relationship with an MMA. Before I start quoting verses and discussing, I will explain something then use those verses to clarify.

The simple answer to the question is They are different things. You cannot argue that just because one concept has guidelines this must mean the other one must also have guidelines and then go on to conclude that certain features of that concept (sex) must be rejected. You could argue that they are similar things and thus you'd expect similar guidelines which is what i think is being argued. But wether they are similar and if yes how similar they are, is open to discussion.

Let?s begin with an example
You start a relationship. You are 2 weeks into it and you think this person is not for me, as in this won?t go anywhere serious thus you break up.

This does not happen in marriages because in a marriage, you have already supposedly been with someone for long enough and known them for long enough to propose marriage (a serious commitment) therefore you cannot go into marriage and then 2 weeks into it think naaah this person is not for me and then expect to just break up. Take note of these expected attributes of a marriage as I expand on them.

These attributes are why there are these guidelines. For example

Verses 2226-228

2226 For those who abstain from their wives, they shall be given four months. If they cease, then God is Forgiving, Merciful. 2227 And if they insist on the divorce, then God is Hearer, Knowledgeable. 2228 And those divorced shall wait for three menstruation periods; and it is not lawful for them to conceal what God has created in their wombs, if they believe in God and the Last Day. And their husbands would then have just cause to return together, if they both wish to reconcile. And the obligations owed to them are to be fulfilled, as are the obligations owed by them. But the men will have a greater responsibility over them in this. And God is Noble, Wise.

What I understand about 2226-227

These are safeguards to maintain a marriage and prevent divorce. This is because it is expected of the individuals who entered this commitment to actually feel like this is the right person they picked to spend the rest of their life with. There is a possibility that they are making rash decisions in considering divorce. Thus this safeguard prevents rash decisions. Not only that but it also makes sure that those who marry for short term purposes, have something to be put off by and take the marriage commitment seriously. Note the part ?If they then cease......and if they insist on the divorce? Now would such safeguards be necessary to the gf/bf scenario? Here?s the key question Consider that the gf and bf in those two weeks that they were in a relationship have had sex. How much difference does this make? I ask this in relation to the verse which talks of divorce if no sex was involved. This way the scenario more accurately represents 2226-227.

Most likely people would say that if they had had sex, then this = possibility of child (I will come on to that)

About 2228
The verse requests the divorced women to wait a certain amount of time. I will assume that this is purely for pregnancy reasons. The following is from the QXP translation which takes all the relevant verses into account

After divorce, women shall wait three menstruations before remarriage. There is no waiting period for a woman who is divorced before intimate relations with her husband (3349). And it is three months if they do not habitually menstruate (654). They shall not conceal pregnancy if they believe in Allah and in the Hereafter. In case of pregnancy, their waiting period shall be until delivery (654). And during this period their husbands would do better to take them back if both of them desire reconciliation.

I will acknowledge this to be the best objection to my argument. Thus it is difficult and controversial to answer. Nevertheless, this is not enough to reject my argument though i am tempted change opinion slightly, i must stick to reason.

Look at the last part of the translation ?And during this period their husbands would do better to take them back if both of them desire reconciliation.?
Now let?s summarise.
If there?s been no sex, then obviously there is no chance of child so no more waiting period apart from the 4 month (though this is a separate kind of period) But if there has been sex, then the chance of child is possible and so the waiting period. Now if pregnant, then wait till birth. Now what is the point of this, if they are already divorced? The divorced wife may have already had found someone willing to marry them as soon as the divorce was legally accomplished. So why should they not marry? I will provide a possible answer

Remember the importance of a marriage and preventing divorce. The birth of a baby, could result in the reuniting of the parents of the child WHO ONCE SUPPOSEDLY WANTED TO SPEND THE REST OF EACH OTHER?S LIFE TOGETHER. Not only does this benefit the parents, but it also benefits the child. Thus the emphasis is on reuniting and giving the kid his real father which will most likely be of benefit to the kid. To emphasise my point And their husbands would then have just cause to return together, if they both wish to reconcile. And the obligations owed to them are to be fulfilled, as are the obligations owed by them.

peace

[nimnimak_11]

Salam bigmo

All I am saying we need to understand, as the case with salat, why we are doing what we do. Rituals are but rituals, and paper work are but paper work. This is what happens when "marriage becomes the issue and not a real relationship between human beings.

Perhaps marriages are to be serious relationships and thus the guidelines. Whilst a relationship with an MMA could range and equally ranging with it, the seriousness of the oath between the two. It could strengthen over time for exmaple. The oath initself could be a guideline.

2225 God will not call you to account for your casual oaths, but He will call you to account for what has entered your hearts. God is Forgiving, Compassionate.

1694 And do not use your oaths as a means of deception between you, that a foot will slip after it has been made firm, and you will taste the evil of turning away from the path of God, and you will have a great retribution.

[Bigmo]

Thank you for the clarification. Is it 100% that it can not mean master/owner? There are translations that have used the terms owner or master.

MMA does not necessarily mean slave. The translation uses that because thats Sunni interpretation. It could mean those of you who have an oath or those under your protection or those with whom their is contract or those who are your partners. In fact slaves is the weakest interpretation.

It seems that some see marriage as a commitment. I have no problem with the commitment part and thats what i meant that its commitment that symbolizes a relationship between two couples as the Quran makes clear, I have a problem with nobody till now explaining what is meant by "marriage".

Marriage as understood by Sunnis is NOT a commitment but a formal process and I have shown that. That process is not based on Quran.

What do you mean by marriage? Lets start from there. Plus lets avoid the MMA issue because there is a dispute about that. But first lets define what is a marriage as understood from a Quranic perspective and not a Sunni perspective or a social perspective. Most Muslims came from this background where marriage is immediately assumed to be a commitment. But thats not what Muslim societies mean by marriage. The mean a process and a ritual. Thats not Quranic.

If its commitment than thats what I am saying and commitment does not need a process. It means financial commitment and sharing of risk and sharing a life with another and of course no cheating.

[SarahY]

Peace Nima

My understanding of your opinion is a gf/bf relationship is not so serious if she gets pregnant it?s not such a big deal like a marriage because you seem to think divorce is bad.

Divorce wasn?t prohibited for a reason. If people can reconcile that could be better but if they can?t they?re better off without each other. Raising a child in a not so good environment can be more harmful than a divorced one.

If there is no waiting period after a mma and a person can decide after 2 weeks ?nah not interested? it seems so easily manipulative. Why wouldn?t mma?s be safeguarded?

For someone who engages in the act for the first time and then has no one and yet desires it so much because they tasted it and have no self control would that mean having a ?sexual buddy? is ok? For no purpose other than that to fulfil loneliness? Is that ok? If 2 mutually agree? I don?t feel that is right. to me it?s like a fahsha

So two people mutually agree for fun and for some reason one person takes them more seriously or likes them, the other doesn?t.. imagine how upset they?d be. They started the relationship purely on selfish/desire grounds ?fun? ?fulfilling desire? that seems more messed up.

Anyway goodluck with your exam