How sex before Marriage is not haram (prohibited) according to the Quran
-
Peace Shirly
I began to read your article and after getting so far I stopped. There are too many inconsistencies in what you have written. I will not go over them all. I'll just make a few comments.
First, I'm assuming you are not married (forgive my assumption if I am wrong) and have no children.
If you are not, then let me tell you I've seen first hand what sex out of wedlock can do to you.
Have you ever heard of a child being raised by a single parent?
Children growing up in broken homes?
Sexually transmitted diseases?
Children raising children?No. I've not had the blessing of marriage yet and I have not physically seen the harms of sex, but i am well aware of them. The list of harms you provided, i am all aware of.
Over that past (I'm just going to making up a number only because of technology and all) like 70 years they've just introduced barrier contraceptives, so that can't be an argument for not getting pregnant or contracting sexually transmitted diseases. Because contraceptives are a new thing just recently made within the 20th century. And I'm not talking about coitus interruptus. That is a fail method. It's methods is flawed. There is no full protection from pregnancy and sure enough not diseases.
Indeed there are no 100% protections from pregnancy except vasectomy. But i would think it is better not to have that.
Still 98% is strong. I know that it is not sufficent for something serious like pregnancy or let's say the risk of a life just so one can have sex, but you are only seeing a dead end after pregnancy. What about abortion? and you have also not considered the possiblity that the two who had sex, may have been sufficiently moral to choose to be responsible enough to raise their child or the possibility that it may bring them closer. Do not focus only on the negative.There is clear harm if not done right and if done irresponsiblly. But if done right and reponsiblly, such harms won't necessarily show.
The Quran is for all times, so lets look at it just as that.
That is exactly what i hope people keep in mind.
It supports marriage and if you can not afford to marry you are told to practice restraint. It tell you to protect your private parts and that they are for your spouse alone.
I don't know where you stopped in my article. But the objection to these points that you make are on this thread if you look for them. They are not unreasonable objections IMO. If you find them to be. Say what you find unreasonable within them so that we can discuss and so that we can get closer to the truth. You may be acknowledging the truth or you may not be. Same with me. But in discussing, we enhance our chances of finding out the truth.
There is a specific part within that same verse that speaks of those who are under you can see you in a nude condition A.k.A your privates. I'm a mom, so my kids have caught an eyeful in their lifetime. I'm more careful now that they are getting older just because I think that is proper.
Your doctor has your medical approval to have limited access to certain parts of your body for health/medical reasons.I have not come across this. If you quote this, this may show a limitation upon MMAs which is not upon spouses and thus this would break down my whole argument. I can't comment on this though at moment as i have not come across anything like this and i have looked using the tools available to the best of my ability. To expand on that, using globalquran.com. I searched the word chaste, chastity. Later on after a good objection was raised by Kaamil and Sarah, i searched divorce. I looked at the verses individually and the ones that stood out, i looked at a word by word translation and looked at roots. I have done my homework I think. I have spent much time on this and i cannot see sex being exclusive to marriage alone.
Because of such loose ways of think/ understanding it can create a cancer with in the society.
This won't necessarily happen. Would it be fair to say that because free-will includes the possibilty of evil that it should not exist? Or would it be fair if a government decided that there should be no physical contact between man or women unless married and they provided the following reasoning
Contact temps the two into more contact untill sex (might to but does this always happen? Can't put a percentage on this but let's say theres a 2% chance of this)Your objection is similar in this way IMO
Sex will lead to pregnancy or STDs (Only 2% chance if contraception used)
This will lead to single parents (again if responsibilty is there, this won't necessarily happen. What about abortion or the couple commiting to raising their children?)I know plenty of women who are struggling to raise children on their own because of after the fun was gone, the men moved on to something that they can get continuous uninterrupted fun out of. Not wasting their time trying to be a father and all. Who would want that? That's too much like right! And let's not talk about diseases! Why is it that one of the most deadliest diseases ( eventhough I think this diseases was manufactured) can be transmitted by sex. Wouldn't you be more safer to stick to your spouse.
What about those who take advantage of marriages? They follow the procedure in the Quran because that is the goverment's law and still they take advantage. After they have they have their fun, or get enough money, they request divorce. Kinda like conning. STDs would happen wether within marriage or outside.
Maybe you started this article to get a rise out of folks or maybe you want support to do what you want.
Why have you not included the possiblity of me trying to get to the truth or that i am trying to further my understanding of the Quran?
You should not make such assumptions about someone whom you have not met. It's not fair...seriously. I've come across this enough times.My motive is to get to the truth. If you want i can expand on this.
but in the broad scheme of things you are advocating more harm than good.
I am advocating the possibility that people have a wrong understanding about something and am asking people to prove me wrong. I have not concluded anything yet. The points i have made however are not yet sufficiently answered IMO.
If you have never been married and you never sat down in a room full of men and women with diseases and children out of wedlock who are struggling with either a death sentence or something that they can never get rid of (including kids) and wish they would have listen to what they were told. I think your argument is moot and here is where I bail out.
I have not done any of the above.
Would this not be like me saying, If you have not physically seen natural disasters, dicators, rapists and criminals. Then i believe your argument for the existence of God is moot. Or that your argument for God doing a good thing by giving humanity free-will is Moot.
What of the many good things and the many good people. Should we forget the goodness of freewill because of the misuse of it by some? OR should we forget the amazing things or signs in life that point to something because of the existence of natural disasters?If you do not keep your mind open on any matter no matter how bad it may seem to you, you have done wrong IMO. For the truth will be clear if your mind is open and your reason impartial and unbiased IMO. If you do these things i believe you can justify yourself in the sight of GOD. It's when you don't do these things, that i think justifying yourself becomes difficult.
I'm tired of seeing this kind of garbage blasted all over this website. Is this free-minds or lose your mind??? It's a shame how things get twisted and people will understand things by their own desires and pick the worse of understanding. Yes, this is a forum to disgust things. But come on!!! Really! Why is it that topics like these get the most hits with no outcome? (It's like reading a tabloid sometimes or watching Jerry Springer. Or, maybe more like Maury Povich. ARE YOU THE FATHER??? ??? -[ That's what a lot of people are asking now adays in this backwards society with all their free lovin'! ) Throughout the Quran it advocates marriage. Also, consummation of the marriage. There is no consummating if you have been doing it all along. Which Quran are you reading??? Cause I'm confused. Sorry for the harsh tone, then again, no, I'm not sorry! I'm going to say it straight and pull no punches. I wish to see the sanctity of marriage and family preserved. I came from a broken home. I grew up in a area over run by those like me all because of our parents selfishness going after their own personal desires and not looking at the aftermath of the situation. Who will it impact the most? The children and society as a whole. This is a shameful attempt in trying to justify or get someone else to sign-off and agree on such a clear argument. While you worry about who you can have sex with, chaos is breaking out worldwide. People are being oppressed, suppressed and depressed all over. Family is to the winds. Values and moral are null and void and the world is becoming colder and colder. Kids are wandering the streets with nowhere to go and no one to look after them. What you suggest, through your understanding, opens the doors for lewdness openly and secretly. The total collapse of the human family. The family that I and others like me did not have the privilege to have. Where is the commitment? To hold these views you can say, well if you are committed to that one person then there should be no harm. I say, what are you trying to hide to keep it a secret or would you like to keep the field open for more action if you are in fact involve in this type of relationship. What society will this way of living work right in other than the corrupt one that is presently the dominating force. Again I ask, are you married? If not, take a broad look at society and then reflect on your understanding. Or maybe you started this thread just to get people riled up. Who knows? I spoke my peace.
Your honesty in your post i truly do appreciate as this gives me the chance to address some unfairness.
You are too harsh and unfair.....You have not read my article.
You have not met me in person to know my character. Yet your post (towards the end) is full of assumptions about me and accusations of my intentions. Your words spell out hatred and anger towards me for my decision to start this thread.Your past is the primary thing that motivated me to reply to you in detail. If you don't want to discuss this issue, then it is your decision. I appreciate those who have contributed including yourself because it gives the opportunity to get closer to the truth. Your experiences made me think. But think about my answers to you. Through discussing like this, we can get closer to the truth, both in terms of heart and reason but also Quranically.
Don't let any hatred towards me enter your heart because it is not justified.
Peace
-
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,
EdipI'm not an expert in Arabic, but here is the most literal translation I can come up with
235 Wa allatheena hum li furoojihim hafithoona = and those who, to their private parts, guard/are guarding.
This clearly refers to maintaining one's chastity. The exception for this is
236 Except around their spouses, or those whom they have contractual rights, they are free from blame.
Therefore, sex is only permissible with one's spouse(s) and one's MMA(s).
I know. That's what i'm arguing for. That sex is permissble with MMA.
peace
-
"You shall not kill your children due to fear of poverty. We provide for them, as well as for you. Killing them is a gross offense"(1731)
"You shall not kill any (Nafs) person - for GOD has made life sacred - except in the course of justice??."(1733)
whether you believe Abortion is Okay since an Embryo Is or is Not consitered a (Naf) is Irrelevent because It clearily says Poverty being the Main Driven Force behind the killing. Killing an Embryo is the same thing as killing a child in that One will infact take the place of the eventual other.
If you look at the strong launguage presented it says "Life is Sacred". So, an Embryo is Still a Living Organism. It Has the Potential to Live and Die, It can Feed, and Grow, and According Biology it is Composed of many cells therefore an Embryo is a Living Organism.
Key Points 1) Do not Kill your children For Fear of Poverty.... (killing an Embryo is the same thing especially if you are doing to because of Fear of Poverty)
2) Life is Sacred... So... What are Living Things?? Living Organisms are Sacred then? Cells? Trees? Ants? All of Creation?I think a valid Reason must be givin in order to sacrifice/kill someone of something. Doing it for fear of Poverty is not Correct.
No, in my opinion abortion is not the same as killing of children.
And fear of poverty is different from actually being poor and having no way of feeding the child or yourselves.
Now this is just getting Rediculous. If it is the same as marriage, then why wouldnt one simply just want to get married and get a legal contract?
Is it because he would like to be stubborn? and just INTENTIONALLY look for ways to rebell?
Thats all it is .... Rebellion. Stubbornness. Looking for a way to make things fit your own desires...I take that back. It's not just like marriage, but close. When you are married you are supposed to be living with each other and stuff. You don't have to be living as a couple but you can still be comitted to each other.
But then why wouldn't you just get married? Maybe because marriage is a religious/cultural thing and there are a lot of expectations from people about how their marriage is supposed to be. People are supposed to spend tens of thousands of dollars on a wedding.
And on top of that a marriage isn't just about two people, it's about two families. And a lot of times it isn't that simple to get married whenever you want to.
I know it doesn't have to be that way but it is. And that's why people can choose to put of the actual act of marriage and still be together.But anyway, you completely missed the point which was that a ritual and a legal contract doesn't change what is between two people. It doesn't change anything at all and it doesn't really make having kids any safer.
peace
-
progressive1993.
I get what you are saying, I read Edip's Thread and understand what you are saying about "Born" Children.
However
I think its so irrelevant because of the fact that whether its BORN or UNBORN, it is still in the Process of BEING BORN.
Do you understand what I am saying?If I say... "well, I cant Kill my child once it is BORN....So instead, I will Kill him when he is in an Embryo-like state BEFORE he Gets BORN."
But, Logically...What you are doing pretty much the same.About your chicken....If I take a Chicken Egg that is Fertilized....and Break it open and Eat it... I am Eating Chicken, it is Broken up, and no longer Growing.(dead)
If I wait till it hatches and starts chirping to kill it and eat it...I am STILL eating Chicken.
Then If I wait till it grows up to be an Adult Chicken to kill it and Eat it... Then... I am STILL eating Chicken!Its Okay to kill animals, because that Serves a Survivalist Purpose. You Kill the animal and use its body to help you Survive. Thats called Sacrificing the Animal for Allah. ie.e Feeding your Family and the Poor or Orphans.
Now When you Have an Abortion... Are you going to use the dead Baby Embroy's Body for anything? Are you going to use the Embroy's Body to Feed on? Are you going to use it to Survive? Are you using it for ANY Possible Halal Purpose? No...you are simply Destorying it and Stopping all of the cells from Working to Create and grow. You are putting a STOP to the Natural Purpose that it is Doing.
So, WOuld you Destroy a Tree because it is Growing? WOuld you Stop an Animal from doing its Natural Job? well.... Possiblily if it is For Survival Purposes.
But if there is NO Survival Perpose... Then... why would you kill it? Are you being an Oppressor of Nature?And @ Lobster...
Dont you think you are Splitting Hairs? I mean... Being In Fear of being Poor and Actually Being Poor...whats the Difference?
The Point Remains the Same. 1) No Child..... 2) Because of Poverty
CauseChild EffectPoverty
When In Islam, Allah Constantly Eurges the Believers to 1)Be Patient 2)Struggle Hard with their Wealth and 3) Believe that ALLAH will Provide Sustinance for them.If you Dont believe that Allah will 1)Provide sustinance, 2)wants you to be patient, or 3) eurges you to struggle hard with your wealth...
then I guss Sure go head and get an Abortion.Its weird how the Quran constantly says that Family is a Blessing, Sustinence is given to the believers, Trials and Tribulation, and to Help the Children be they yours OR Orphanes.
So with the Context of the Quran....It doesnt seem that it would Condone Abortion for stupid Reasons.
If thats the case, Then how about Selling your Body for money...I mean "Desparate times calls for desparate measures".... right?
If you are too poor to have kids, You should be too poor to have sex.And I dont mean to sound like a hypocrate. Inshallah You or I will never have to go through such Trials like that.
-
RA,
your arguements are weak. You said that killing LIFE is forbidden (which is not true, according to The Quran), so killing a chicken, cow, tree, etc. would be forbidden, according to that logic. The killing of a nafs (person/self/individual) is forbidden, and not "life" (whatever your definition is), according to The Quran. Of course, you make up an excuse for killing animals, to avoid acknowledging your double standard...
Also, your "it is going to be a chicken" and "it is going to be a baby" arguements are nonsense. When you eat an egg, you are NOT eating chicken - you're eating an egg, which is not meat. When you are "killing" what is within the womb when it is not a "nafs" yet, it is not "killing a baby". I invite you to go back to the thread (which is not "Edip's thread", btw, maybe you mean his article) and check the calculations and the verses again.
If I say... "well, I cant Kill my child once it is BORN....So instead, I will Kill him when he is in an Embryo-like state BEFORE he Gets BORN."
But, Logically...What you are doing pretty much the same.Actually, it is NOT the same. In fact, "born children" is only to emphasize (since "walad" means "one who is born"/"child", since "child", in the English language refers to a person between infancy and puberty; so it is referring to a born human being by default, just like the Arabic word "walad".
Curious question why do you capitalize every other word?? D
-
RA,
your arguements are weak. You said that killing LIFE is forbidden (which is not true, according to The Quran), so killing a chicken, cow, tree, etc. would be forbidden, according to that logic. The killing of a nafs (person/self/individual) is forbidden, and not "life" (whatever your definition is), according to The Quran. Of course, you make up an excuse for killing animals, to avoid acknowledging your double standard...
Also, your "it is going to be a chicken" and "it is going to be a baby" arguements are nonsense. When you eat an egg, you are NOT eating chicken - you're eating an egg, which is not meat. When you are "killing" what is within the womb when it is not a "nafs" yet, it is not "killing a baby". I invite you to go back to the thread (which is not "Edip's thread", btw, maybe you mean his article) and check the calculations and the verses again.
Actually, it is NOT the same. In fact, "born children" is only to emphasize (since "walad" means "one who is born"/"child", since "child", in the English language refers to a person between infancy and puberty; so it is referring to a born human being by default, just like the Arabic word "walad".
Curious question why do you capitalize every other word?? D
Haha About the caps lock, I guess its just a habit to emphazie what I am trying to convey.
Alright, about the egg.. I wasnt talking about a Regular chicken egg. I was talking about an Egg that is already in the Process of creating a chicken.
I mean, an Egg that doesnt have only yoke but an Egg that had already begun making an Embryo. Do you understand?
DAnyways, I do NOT think that Killing is Wrong. In fact Killing is Very much Nessesary. I am not trying to make a double standard. D
What I ment was that MURDER/Opressive Killing is Forbidden...
For instance, There must be a Reason.,..a VALID Reason... Like.. If I kill a Tree... I dont think thats wrong...Because Its for a Good Reason... (It was weakened by a wind and was going to fall on a house of children)
Also Killing a Human is not nessesarily worng. For instance, a Valid Reason of That would be Self-Defense. Therefore Killing him is Okay under that Condition.
Killing a Cow is Okay if your doing it to eat...But Killing a Cow just for the Fun of it and then Just Leaving the Meat to Rott and just sit there is Forbidden or is Consittered Murder.Killin is the act of taking a living thing and making it Dead BUT for a Good Cause.
MURDER is Taking a living thing and making it Dead....For NO JUST REASON... There fore It is WRONG.Killing...100% Ok! D
Murder 100% Wrong! yuckDo you understand my Logic now? is it still weak? Thanks. D
-
I see where you're coming from, but what you need to understand is that it is not killing of "life" that is prohibited, but killing of a person/self/individual ("nafs". I guess it's mean to kill an egg, without a valid reason, while it's in the process of becoming a chicken (close before it), but...
- It is not a person
- It isn't it in the process of becoming a chicken from the way beginning of it being an egg/ the yolk being in the egg?
Now, technically, the process of an embryo becoming a baby is right at conception, but since it is not a person/self ("nafs", it is not considered murder to terminate it at this stage. Also, "life" (especially in your use) is a vague term. Do you consider "life" anything that moves, anything that is considered an organism, or what? Either way, I need to emphasize that only the killing of a "nafs" is considered murder. However, causing disruption on earth is not allowed, so we should, of course, not go about killing all chickens that we see at random P, as you rightly state with your "having a valid reason" arguement.
I guess killing is not always 100% OK, since one would waste resources/food (with animals) if these are not killed with a valid reason. The key question with abortion is at what stage the foetus (or, rather, that which is inside of it, is considered a person ("nafs". See the thread link which I referenced earlier. Tell me what you think.
Peace
-
Salaam and thanks for replying...I dont know If I should PM you or Write in another Thread... ( I dont want to get the other posters mad. offtopic
I guess I mentioned Abortion since it may arrise or is a little pertinent to the topic of Marriage or Pre-marriage.Anyways, Well.. Personnaly I think ANY Organism/Cell is Consittered Life or Living therefore to some Degree Sacred.
But even Sacred things Die. For instance, A Piece of Grass, a Sperm, an Egg, or a Cell...ALL are living things Classified by Biology and should be Respected.
They should be killed ONLY when Nessesary.For instanace, If there is an Ant, or a Spider...I feel That I should NOT kill it UNLESS there is a valid Reason for doing so.
Such as Self Defense (the Spider is Poisonous and is in my house), or For Survival (I need to eat it).So, The same can be said for an Embryo. It IS a "Living Organism". It has Mass, Weight, Oxygen, it according to Biology is a LIVING ORGANISM.
So Should we KILL an Embryo?
And If we Do decide to Kill this Embryo....Would it be Consittered "Killing? or Murder"?..I think Depending on the Valid Reasonings.If I am going to kill this Embryo Because Of Survival...Then Maybe that is a vailid Enough Reason.
BUT If Im going to kill the Embryo simply Beacuse I think I "can" Or Because I dont want kids yet, or because I think I may or am Poor...Then I think its MURDER.
Maybe NOT MUDER of a HUMAN BEING (Naf) But Deffinatly MURDER of a Living Organism. Which is reason enough for being Unjust. Correct?I mean, in regards to the Poor Issue... How do you know if after you have that baby... Allah Provides you with a GREAT new Job, or maybe Allah might Provide you with an oppertunity to move to a better country to get a better job... You dont know that... You dont know what Allah has instore.
So to say that Its OKAY to kill an Embryo because you MIGHT be Poor...is not a valid reason. I mean I've seen some people Poor One Day and RICH another day. True Story...a Hatian Man that I used to work with as a Busboy...He was Homeless then because Wealthy and in College within a Week!
-
Peace Shirly
No. I've not had the blessing of marriage yet and I have not physically seen the harms of sex, but i am well aware of them. The list of harms you provided, i am all aware of.
Indeed there are no 100% protections from pregnancy except vasectomy. But i would think it is better not to have that.
Still 98% is strong. I know that it is not sufficent for something serious like pregnancy or let's say the risk of a life just so one can have sex, but you are only seeing a dead end after pregnancy. What about abortion? and you have also not considered the possiblity that the two who had sex, may have been sufficiently moral to choose to be responsible enough to raise their child or the possibility that it may bring them closer. Do not focus only on the negative.There is clear harm if not done right and if done irresponsiblly. But if done right and reponsiblly, such harms won't necessarily show.
That is exactly what i hope people keep in mind.
I don't know where you stopped in my article. But the objection to these points that you make are on this thread if you look for them. They are not unreasonable objections IMO. If you find them to be. Say what you find unreasonable within them so that we can discuss and so that we can get closer to the truth. You may be acknowledging the truth or you may not be. Same with me. But in discussing, we enhance our chances of finding out the truth.I have not come across this. If you quote this, this may show a limitation upon MMAs which is not upon spouses and thus this would break down my whole argument. I can't comment on this though at moment as i have not come across anything like this and i have looked using the tools available to the best of my ability. To expand on that, using globalquran.com. I searched the word chaste, chastity. Later on after a good objection was raised by Kaamil and Sarah, i searched divorce. I looked at the verses individually and the ones that stood out, i looked at a word by word translation and looked at roots. I have done my homework I think. I have spent much time on this and i cannot see sex being exclusive to marriage alone.
This won't necessarily happen. Would it be fair to say that because free-will includes the possibilty of evil that it should not exist? Or would it be fair if a government decided that there should be no physical contact between man or women unless married and they provided the following reasoning
Contact temps the two into more contact untill sex (might to but does this always happen? Can't put a percentage on this but let's say theres a 2% chance of this)Your objection is similar in this way IMO
Sex will lead to pregnancy or STDs (Only 2% chance if contraception used)
This will lead to single parents (again if responsibilty is there, this won't necessarily happen. What about abortion or the couple commiting to raising their children?)
What about those who take advantage of marriages? They follow the procedure in the Quran because that is the goverment's law and still they take advantage. After they have they have their fun, or get enough money, they request divorce. Kinda like conning. STDs would happen wether within marriage or outside.Why have you not included the possiblity of me trying to get to the truth or that i am trying to further my understanding of the Quran?
You should not make such assumptions about someone whom you have not met. It's not fair...seriously. I've come across this enough times.My motive is to get to the truth. If you want i can expand on this.
I am advocating the possibility that people have a wrong understanding about something and am asking people to prove me wrong. I have not concluded anything yet. The points i have made however are not yet sufficiently answered IMO.I have not done any of the above.
Would this not be like me saying, If you have not physically seen natural disasters, dicators, rapists and criminals. Then i believe your argument for the existence of God is moot. Or that your argument for God doing a good thing by giving humanity free-will is Moot.
What of the many good things and the many good people. Should we forget the goodness of freewill because of the misuse of it by some? OR should we forget the amazing things or signs in life that point to something because of the existence of natural disasters?If you do not keep your mind open on any matter no matter how bad it may seem to you, you have done wrong IMO. For the truth will be clear if your mind is open and your reason impartial and unbiased IMO. If you do these things i believe you can justify yourself in the sight of GOD. It's when you don't do these things, that i think justifying yourself becomes difficult.
Your honesty in your post i truly do appreciate as this gives me the chance to address some unfairness.
You are too harsh and unfair.....You have not read my article.
You have not met me in person to know my character. Yet your post (towards the end) is full of assumptions about me and accusations of my intentions. Your words spell out hatred and anger towards me for my decision to start this thread.Your past is the primary thing that motivated me to reply to you in detail. If you don't want to discuss this issue, then it is your decision. I appreciate those who have contributed including yourself because it gives the opportunity to get closer to the truth. Your experiences made me think. But think about my answers to you. Through discussing like this, we can get closer to the truth, both in terms of heart and reason but also Quranically.
Don't let any hatred towards me enter your heart because it is not justified.
Peace
Peace nimnimak_11,
I have to say I know I was harsh in my post. It was directed at you because you started the post. In all fairness, I was wrong in my stern approach, but not regretful. Sometimes you have to say what's on your mind as everyone else has on this forum. Are they mean? Sometimes. I may have come across mean, but believe me, I'm not. Although, I have to say that I will not change the way I think concerning this situation ( according to what I understand and reflect on in the Quran) that has been talked about scores over on this forum. There have been very interesting, thought provoking things mentioned here and then there are those topics that just spin completely out of control into something very dark and sinister. Something that challenges the moral fabric of this the people on this forum. Something that is sometimes looking for supporters to condone what lowly thing they want to do. Those who may read this post know what I am talking about. Something that really serves no means other than a persons (lowly) desires. To not see the physical harm in sex outside of marriage is absurd to me. If you grew up where I did, then you would know why that statement is totally outrageous to me. So many bad things can has happen to people I know because they worked outside of the proper structure of courting and marriage. Regretful mistakes that will not go away until someone dies. I am a product of that so-called love of two consenting adults. I was raised by my mother.
On this topic I'll say this, I have children to raise and to teach them good morals and values so they might see things for what they are. Things such as this topic can lead to disruptive behaviors in young people. People who do not have the mental strength or rational to resist their urges or think things through. ( young people are spontaneous). All they need is a slight accidental nod and it's a go for them to do what they want. I've seen it and am seeing it in peoples children that I know personally. This topic is not just dealing with grown people who (so-called) love with each other and want to be committed to each other. It deals with sex. And any one who is physically able to have it outside of being married. So that includes minors, the ones who need the most protection. The ones who question and want a straight no run around answer, because if you hesitate for a minute or can't give it to them, they will find it elsewhere. And better yet, they will find what suits their appetites. So, it's not just talking about sex out of marriage and getting abortions (I'm not even going to address that) as I read further down in this thread. It's talking about this spider wed that we call life and how we are all connected and what one does on one side of that web can be felt on the other side by those who have no direct contact with it. Answer me this. How do I explain to young developing minds when hormones starts to kick in, "Well sons you can have sex with some one you love even though you can not provide for them (where are you going to be having sex at?) and even though you are still in school (How can you take care of them if you can't take care of yourself?) and need to further your education so that you may take care of a family, when that time comes"? See, there is a great flaw in this topic. You can't just look at it from a grown up perspective. It also deals with kids going through puberty as well. The ones whose body is changing and people (especially girls) will be tested and boys will say what they want to get at a girl. These girls will be told they are pretty, loved and what ever else to get them to have sex. If we establish a society that says this is okay as long as you love someone, then it leaves the field wide open for people to play around on it. No strings attached! Instead, wouldn't it be wiser and more responsible and sound to teach young people as well as adults (because it seems like they don't know no better at times) to use restraint? Would that not be the best solution, so that you (they) may avoid certain consequences of your/their deed? Things that will do more harm than good (hence the abortion thing as alternative solutions). Teach people how to rationally think because it's true that false love is real. Sometimes the heart sees what it wants. It would take a rational mind to be able to do that and not all people are able to do that in certain stages of life. The truth is, who you believe you love may only be infatuation. You might set yourself up to end up with a child by someone you do not really care about or vice-versa. You've invested your time and emotion into something that is not or was not ever attempted to be set in stone. And when it comes to young people their emotions are fragile and can't deal with certain realities in life and relationship. This topic is far more then just about sex not being haraam. It has a lot of explaining to be done on it. The proof is not for those who believe in marriage to provide these proves. It is upon the one who has made the challenge to provide the proof. Show how practical it is in all human functions in a humane Quranic society or non Quranic (and there not being a physical society or community is no justification to not abide by moral principals and conduct). How will this behavior benefit the people? What is the positive outcome? What type of life will this have to offer? ???
In marriage nobody knows the future. Tomorrow is not certain, but to be willing to put it in writing and make an honest upfront attempt at marriage so the whole world can see is noble. It take commitment and sacrifice and when it gets tough, you stand and fight to keep this bound together. You proved your seriousness in this relationship by signing your name on the dotted line to grow as one unit with that person and what you may produce.
Also, You need to know, there is no "HATE" or a personal hatred towards you. Where did I say I hate you? ??? The disdain is that some of these topics are un-Quranic. And absolute insult to human intelligence. Some people make issues out of things that are cut and dry in order to obtain their desires. They behave like some things are just so abstract to them to understand. They put a question mark at the end of an obvious sentence. When you get to question some of the things that were obviously made up and that has no Quranic leg to stand on we discard them or try to find the truth to an obvious lie. But when somethings are spelled out clearly, some have the tendency to challenge them without any validity what so ever. That's what I will raise an eyebrow at. To me this is one of those topics.
I think sex out of wedlock is
- Working off ones desires and
- Practicing a lack of self restrain.
You say that you wish to get to the truth of the matter, as a believer you are entitled to that as we all are. I don't know where you live, but things are in complete chaos and moral collapse where I am. And it's all due to people thinking they love each other and doing things with no future out look and then dislike the situation that they've made instead of trying to really get to know each other and find out what true love is and if they are that committed in what they think and feel they they would make it official. You mention being committed and raising a family, if children are conceived out of the intimacy you share you should agree to raise them. If you can do that, why not put it in writing and declare this is the women or man that you wish to spend your life with and raise you family, God willing? Anyway, it's late where I am and I am getting sleepy. I made the statement that maybe this post was started to get peoples goat. You say you are a seeker of truth, I only said that because I know there are people on here who makes those same claims and really mean nothing by it other than you cause confusion. I will apologize for that, if you are sincere in to what you say. As for what I say, I too am sincere about it (Protecting the moral of the human family) You can continue searching for the truth that you say you are looking for because we are all entitled to that. I'll leave with this verse.
(55) This day are (all) good things made lawful for you. The food of those who have received the Scripture is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them. And so are the fortified women of the believers and the fortified women of those who received the Scripture before you (lawful for you) when ye give them their marriage portions and live with them in honor, not in fornication, nor taking them as secret concubines. Whoso denies the faith, his work is vain and he will be among the losers in the Hereafter.
peace
-
Peace Shirly
I have to say I know I was harsh in my post. It was directed at you because you started the post. In all fairness, I was wrong in my stern approach, but not regretful. Sometimes you have to say what's on your mind as everyone else has on this forum. Are they mean? Sometimes. I may have come across mean, but believe me, I'm not.
I do not see you as mean in general. But your strong objection to this issue, resulted in what was kinda of an unfair reply to me IMO. Speak your mind but if in your words you portray someone negatively, such as being immoral or following their desires, it is unfair when you have not considered their reasoning or you don't their character. I havn't insulted you or implied that you lacked morals in any way. But i feel you by implying that i was following desire and attempting to justify it via gaining acceptance from here was insulting. Your posts convey that you hold the belief that pre-martial sex is imorral and anyone who thinks otherwise is impatient and following their desires in an unjustified manner and your justification for this are the harms associated with the act. Harms can arise from marriage too. Harms can arise from many things.
Although, I have to say that I will not change the way I think concerning this situation ( according to what I understand and reflect on in the Quran) that has been talked about scores over on this forum.
It is up to you. But please don't come out so strongly. Rather come out strongly but make it clear that your not attacking the poster's morals.
There have been very interesting, thought provoking things mentioned here and then there are those topics that just spin completely out of control into something very dark and sinister. Something that challenges the moral fabric of this the people on this forum.
The truth will be clear for those who choose to see it IMO. If something is imorral, it can be made clear via discussion. But if beliefs are set and minds closed, the truth may be buried. You automatically assume premarital sex to be wrong without question.
To not see the physical harm in sex outside of marriage is absurd to me. If you grew up where I did, then you would know why that statement is totally outrageous to me.
I acknowledge the harms of sex outside marriage. I also acknowledge the harms of marriage. This is not a sufficient for an act to be moraly wrong.
On this topic I'll say this, I have children to raise and to teach them good morals and values so they might see things for what they are. Things such as this topic can lead to disruptive behaviors in young people.
I have no kids but i would assume that restricting something that need not be restricted would also be bad for children.
This topic is not just dealing with grown people who (so-called) love with each other and want to be committed to each other. It deals with sex. And any one who is physically able to have it outside of being married. So that includes minors, the ones who need the most protection. The ones who question and want a straight no run around answer, because if you hesitate for a minute or can't give it to them, they will find it elsewhere. And better yet, they will find what suits their appetites.
Good point
Answer me this. How do I explain to young developing minds when hormones starts to kick in, "Well sons you can have sex with some one you love even though you can not provide for them
IMO you tell them not to have sex with anyone untill they have a job and are responsible enough. Now let me ask you this
How do you explain to responsible mature adults that sex should be only exclusive to marriages? What if a couple feel it is right to have sex, but they are not yet ready for marriage?(where are you going to be having sex at?) and even though you are still in school (How can you take care of them if you can't take care of yourself?)
See, there is a great flaw in this topic. You can't just look at it from a grown up perspective. It also deals with kids going through puberty as well.
This isn't a flaw IMO. Adults are different to children. This is clear. Parents have to tell them what to eat becasue they don't know what's good for them. But past a certain age or past a certain point in life, the child becomes an adult and should be allowed to be responsible for themselves.
Think about this I'm currently away from home and stuying at uni. So i live by myself. You cannot argue that because some people who move out may do stupid things such as fall for drugs or get tricked or conned or the many other harms that could come from an individual moving out and then conlude that moving out should be prohibited in general untill let's say they have car. Moving out though has harms, is not something that should be restricted to those who are ready for it and can do it right. If one gets conned or tricked into drugs and so on, it is their responsibilty. Now sometime some drugdealers are clever and intice really well as you argue with young love. This again won't justify not moving out. Similarly, you cannot prohibit something to those who are ready and responsible for it and then go as far as calling it immoral.
The ones whose body is changing and people (especially girls) will be tested and boys will say what they want to get at a girl. These girls will be told they are pretty, loved and what ever else to get them to have sex.
I know. This is where responsiblity and patience comes in. This applies to marriage is well. Someone will be told that they are loved for themselves and not because of their money. Once the marriage is in place, the divorce follows, which is then followed by a larg sum of money for the successful connist. Should marriage be prohibited because of this?
If we establish a society that says this is okay as long as you love someone, then it leaves the field wide open for people to play around on it. No strings attached! Instead, wouldn't it be wiser and more responsible and sound to teach young people as well as adults (because it seems like they don't know no better at times) to use restraint?
Yes but restraint within reason. One needs to restrain in many things. A married couple want a kid. They should restrain becasue they can't afford. This does not mean having kids is forbidden to all. Similarly premarital sex. Someone should wait untill they are ready and make sure they are not being tricked just like in finding the right person to marry and know all the necessary things. Does marriage satisfy this? No because many can get tricked about marriage. Thus let's prohibit marriage altogether?! Someone who rushes and does not practice restraint, is bound to end up hurt wether this is marriage or premarital sex.
Teach people how to rationally think because it's true that false love is real.
True. But how is this related to premarital sex? I can see it related to rushed sex which could be within marriage or outside of marriage. A married couple decide to have sex without using contraception even though, they know they can't afford a child They rush such that the husband left his condom in his wallet and left his wallet at work and is too caugh up in the moment to go and get a condom from somewhere. Is this sex which is within marriage right??
Sometimes the heart sees what it wants.
Forgive me for saying what i am assuming. But are you not set in wanting to see premarital sex as morally wrong? I know what i've quoted is contextually different but it came to me to make this point.
The proof is not for those who believe in marriage to provide these proves. It is upon the one who has made the challenge
I have provided proof. Both with reason and both via Quran. I am waiting for objections which would result in my heart and reason acknowledging or the verses from the Quran which contradicts what i'm saying.
How will this behavior benefit the people? What is the positive outcome? What type of life will this have to offer? ???
The same way music can benefit people. Or the same way that looking at a beautiful landscape can benefit people. These are all good provisions and gifts provided by god. You call sex outside of marriage as purely a desire. So what is the intention to listen to music or looking at a beautiful landscape then? A desire? Does this make it wrong?
In marriage nobody knows the future. Tomorrow is not certain, but to be willing to put it in writing and make an honest upfront attempt at marriage so the whole world can see is noble.
The same can be done with any relationship. Difference is papers and documents. What makes marriage exclusive to me is that it makes a fact clear. That the two have decided that they
a) Want to live with each other for the rest of their lives.
b) Want to start a family.
This to me is the purpose of marriage and i don't see why sex should be exclusive to it based on my arguments so far.It take commitment and sacrifice and when it gets tough, you stand and fight to keep this bound together.
Exactly. This is what it's meant to be about.
You proved your seriousness in this relationship by signing your name on the dotted line
Not exactly but similar to my view. By marriage, you declare that you want to spend the rest of your life with that person. You could still see serious relationships outside of marriage. Why sex should exclusive, is another issue.
Also, You need to know, there is no "HATE" or a personal hatred towards you. Where did I say I hate you? ???
No not hatred. Anger. Your post showed that you were angry at me for starting this topic. I wrote "don't let any hatred enter your heart" because i thought that it might.
The disdain is that some of these topics are un-Quranic. And absolute insult to human intelligence. Some people make issues out of things that are cut and dry in order to obtain their desires. They behave like some things are just so abstract to them to understand. They put a question mark at the end of an obvious sentence.
So am i to take that i am insulting human intelligence or starting something unQuranic?
Is this approach not similar to sunnis who claim that to abondon hadith and sunnah is unislamic and unquranic and it is an attempt to obtain desire when something is cut and dry. In other words those who question hadith and sunnah to be islamic, are putting a question mark at the end of obvious things....
When you get to question some of the things that were obviously made up and that has no Quranic leg to stand on we discard them or try to find the truth to an obvious lie. But when somethings are spelled out clearly, some have the tendency to challenge them without any validity what so ever. That's what I will raise an eyebrow at. To me this is one of those topics.
But you have not even read the whole of my article not seen my objections and so on!!!!! Sure it's clearly spelt out when you don't consider other views with an open mind!
I don't know where you live,
I'm in the Uk and am familiar with the problems that can arise from pre-marital sex.
Anyway, it's late where I am and I am getting sleepy. I made the statement that maybe this post was started to get peoples goat. You say you are a seeker of truth, I only said that because I know there are people on here who makes those same claims and really mean nothing by it other than you cause confusion. I will apologize for that, if you are sincere in to what you say.
As for what I say, I too am sincere about it (Protecting the moral of the human family) You can continue searching for the truth that you say you are looking for because we are all entitled to that. I'll leave with this verse.
(55) This day are (all) good things made lawful for you. The food of those who have received the Scripture is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them. And so are the fortified women of the believers and the fortified women of those who received the Scripture before you (lawful for you) when ye give them their marriage portions and live with them in honor, not in fornication, nor taking them as secret concubines. Whoso denies the faith, his work is vain and he will be among the losers in the Hereafter.
If your apology is sincere, then i accept and appreciate it.
If you look at this thread, you will see how 55 does not clearly spell Premarital sex is wrong and haram.peace
-
Peace Shirly
see how 55 does not clearly spell Premarital sex is wrong and haram.
peace
(55) This day are (all) good things made lawful for you. The food of those who have received the Scripture is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them. And so are the fortified women of the believers and the fortified women of those who received the Scripture before you (lawful for you) when ye give them their marriage portions and live with them in honor, not in fornication, nor taking them as secret concubines. Whoso denies the faith, his work is vain and he will be among the losers in the Hereafter.
"women are lawful for you" for sex but only when you have given them your oath of marriage but do not fornicate.
you are totally rediculing the quran - no doubt you will face the consequances in your life. but you will only see it when Allah shows you it- i think, never mind , we all learn one way or another.
peace
-
(55) This day are (all) good things made lawful for you. The food of those who have received the Scripture is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them. And so are the fortified women of the believers and the fortified women of those who received the Scripture before you (lawful for you) when ye give them their marriage portions and live with them in honor, not in fornication, nor taking them as secret concubines. Whoso denies the faith, his work is vain and he will be among the losers in the Hereafter.
"women are lawful for you" for sex but only when you have given them your oath of marriage but do not fornicate.
you are totally rediculing the quran - no doubt you will face the consequances in your life. but you will only see it when Allah shows you it- i think, never mind , we all learn one way or another.
peace
He is only trying to interpret the Quran and plus nobody yet has fully defined what is meant by marriage. I don't think that personal attacks based on what conclusion people have deduced will help anybody. Interpreting the Quran is not easy and plus many Sunnis accuse us of the same charge that we don't want to pray so we go to the Quran and find two or three prayers or we don't want to fast and then we go to the Quran to find an excuse. I don't see why someone trying to interpret the Quran should be attacked.
-
Peace nimnimak_11! Could you pls explain to me why in Q424 an independent woman is not to be married except as MMA?
Peace Omeiza
I have looked at it before to see wether this would break down the argument about pre-marital sex. I didn't think that it would but I'm not sure why the Quran would request this. I don't think i can provide an answer, but i think i can provide important things worth reflecting on.
Firstly "independent women" has the following meanings
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.From the above there are various meanings but at first glance i think the word chaste should be canceld out because of 424. It would not make sense for chaste women to be "forbidden for marriage unless they come from MMA" whilst the following "slave girls" from 425 can be married without them having to come from MMA so there has to be something else other then chastity that seperates these two.
What is translated as slave girls or youths or young women or dependant women in 425 is the following
Fa-Ta-Ya = to be young, full-grown, brave, generous, manly qualities, bold, courageous, fine fellow, gallant, young comrade, young slave, servant.
Now what is chosen as the meaning here, will effect the understanding of the so called "independent women"I have seen the women in 424 translated as independent and those in 425 as dependent. But this to me would not makes sense because these words are not within the roots so how have some translators come to that conclusion? This is something those who are more skilled would have to explain.
Another important thing to keep in mind is 2433. This verse could be the key to solving the meanings of the above. Here is another root which will be imprtant to look at in this verse
Ba-Ghayn-Ya = Sought for or after, desired, endeavored to find and take and get (good or evil)
Loving or affecting a thing
Acting wrongfully, injuriously or tyrannically
Seeking or endeavoring to act corruptingly, wrongly and/or unjustly, insolent/disobedient
Exceeding due bounds or just limits in any way
Not right, proper or fit
Prostitute or adulteress, unchaste
Seeking what one should not seek
Seeking game or prey
Place where a thing is sought, way or manner in which a thing is sought.Bear in mind that this root appears to be compared to the root Ha-Sad-Nun. So chaste and unchaste is what would come to my mind. But the issue of fatayat and muhsinat makes this unclear for me.
I'm hoping to look at this topic in more detail. But first i need to finish this thread and summarise wether sex with MMA is permitted or not.
Oh and one more thing that might be of use to you which i just remebered in replying to bigmo
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 222Some 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
Whats translated here as independent is actually from the root H-s-n. So does that mean that its 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. -
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_controversies_related_to_Nikah_Mut'ah
Salam Afridi
I also believe marriages to be not for lust. That is clear in morality and reason as well as in AQ.
-
And what is the verses in surat al noor talking about then?
Did you mean 2433?
If yes then have a look at this
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.
About the root Ha-Sad-Nun
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 222Some 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. -
peace
its so simple; please don't be offended
424
Also women who guard (who can't marry you for their own reasons), except those whom you possess(you are married to) Thus hath Allah ordained(prohibition) 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.peace
-
peace
its so simple; please don't be offended
424
Also women who guard (who can't marry you for their own reasons), except those whom you possess(you are married to) Thus hath Allah ordained(prohibition) 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.peace
There is nothing in this post for me to take offence in )
peace