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

nsws1988

wow this is so creepy ra786. Are you a mind reader or something? &

RA786

wow this is so creepy ra786. Are you a mind reader or something? &

Haha No why where you thinking the same thing? lol? D

Naw, actually alot of this articles and pictures came from a Thread/Articles I posted in the past on a different website but with the same Subject Matter.
The Wake Up Project. www.wakeupproject.com
Alot of the Issues that interest me are the relevant issues in todays society. Sociology, Anti-christ/Dajjal, New World Order Conspiracy, Religion, Sex, Energy, Magic etc...

It is NO Coinsodence that Promiscous Matterial is being Propagated in Music,Movies, and TV wile.....Marriage, Family, and Divine Love is faded Away.
Wether you believe in a Real Manifestation of the Anti-christ/Dajjal or the symbolic Ant-christ/dajjal being a representation of Society/Structure...It does Exist. There is no Doubt.

That is why I must Stress Marriage, LOVE, UNION, FAMILY, and things that are Quranic in Nature. (the powers that be hate those concepts in society)
I guess I believe the Quran is a sort of al-mahdi aginst this Dajjalic System.

And that is why We are here Debating Whether the Quran Allows Dajjalic type Sex....or if the QUran Allows True Good Sex.
Personnally, it is Obvious with the Context of the QUran, that Marriage is Closer to the Goodness and Promiscous/Fornication is closer to the Dajjalic Nature of Evil.

D Peace/Salaam

nimnimak_11

I meant if there was a legal contract between them or at least they are known to the public as a couple, then the father can't flee from his responsibilities. You might think this won't happen but it does and single mothers are left to take care of their child on their own with no financial help from the father.

Oh i see. But this is only the case If in a country the law is such that the husband must provide for the child. But this is a good law and would be there in an ideal society. So I agree on that there is clear benefit in marriage for protection of pregnant women and the child. But i can't agree on 2233 being exclusive to married parents on that argument alone. The verse is clear on ALL parents and IMO shows no signs of being exclusive to marriage. I'm looking at the verse without bias and this is how i'm concluding this

I first thought where the verse was placed could imply it was exclusive to marriages. But then i came across the two sandwiched verses on "salat". More importantly i thougt wouldn't 2233 be clearer? then i though perhaps it's taken into account divorced parents who are no longer married. But then again i though why not mention divorced. like it was mentioned a few verses ago when it was talking of pregnancy. This would be clear like in 2228

nimnimak_11

@ riseup & ninimak
that is also the way i see it
also, this interpretation of "those with which you are bonded through an oath" (imo implying reciprocity) is more acceptable than the one seeing malakat aymakoum as slave girls...
LK

Salam Riseup and Elke

That's what's on mind. I think Q to be against causal sex but it does not make sex exclusive to marriages. I EXTREMELY doubt MMA could mean slaves. That would be the exact defenition of causal sex IMO. I think oath is very important in all of this but i havn't had a proper look at it yet but the issue with MMA needs to be properly solved first.

nimnimak_11

Hi San

A very interesting thread, i must say.

Thanks.

If you've made up your mind about this--maybe the only thing left to do is ... practice? Because i can't help but notice so many could be's in this thread. So why not just let it be? Or at least, maybe steal other ppl's experiences for more insights? Maybe friends, relatives who've been there done that. Just maybe...

I havn't made up my mind on this at all yet. I just think that sex with MMA is permitted based on AQ. It could be that MMA are those your engaged with or it could be less then this. Maybe more.
I fear consequences in practicing this. Someone experience advised me to Go ahead! But the same person said to me that sex sparks very powerful feelings. So i said what if i end up wanting to end the relationship and the other side doesn't? How much emotional pain will that cause? He gave me such a weak answer that it is not worth mentioning IMO.

Also, anyone noticed the youngest age we've known yet of two human beings having sex (by their own will)? Or youngest mothers to give birth ever?

What i mean is, what is/are the boundary/ies for sex then, if not marriage--age? biology? psychology/emotion? self-control? economy? supply/availability? An oath? Oral or written? And how binding is this oath? One-to-one relationship only, or something more than that? (if there's any limit, where in AQ do we have that reMMA?)

What are the boundries for marriage with regards to age? or for one to be able to decide their own diet instead of being forced green vegtables and fruits by their mother? I think that it is when you consider that a child is no longer a child and that they are mature adults. The question is, when is that according to AQ. Hopefully we can progress on these questions by looking more into them. I can't really answer you right now. But really good questions. Especially about the limit of MMAs. But then i would think that multiple partners, would be a type of fahsha....but that is my subjective feeling. It may be that this is not fahsha in the sight of God. I don't know. I think there will be more things in AQ to solve these questions.

I'm in for good discussions )

Good to know
welcome

nimnimak_11

Peace all

It's 531 a.m here. I need to sleep. I will reply to others tomorow.

nimnimak_11

Salam Zubairus

Let us look at it like this
The post basically was meant to prove a point, which is non prohibition of premarital sex by quran and the argument essentially was based on the understanding that MMA are among the group we can have sex with yet they are not our spouse/wives.Ref 424

Yes

But if we understand MMA to mean slaves, the argument for premarital sex is arrested.

Yep. For this generation anyway. It would be questionable whether sex with slaves would have been permitted prior to marriage in the past.

Now,an argument against MMA = those possessed by your oath/those you have bond with is that, In 3350-52, the merciful lord mentioned woman that offered herself to the prophet.This woman offered herself, a bond, yet not label as MMA, still and more importantly,in the same verse the prophet was told not to mary any more except MMA. This to me is proving that MMA is not = those you have a bond with.Note, I am not unaware of the fact that the provision therein was meant for the prophet alone.

Omeiza advised me to look at those verses but I did not fully understand what he wanted me to pick out then. I'l quote 3350 and highlight what i think your directing me towards and comment on it. If i've commented on the wrong thing, please correct me. So heres 3350
You, you the prophet, that We, We permitted/allowed for you your wives/spouses those who you gave their rewards (dowries), and what your right (hand) owned/possessed from what God bestowed upon you, and your paternal uncles' daughters, and your paternal aunts' daughters, and your maternal uncles' daughters, and your maternal aunts' daughters, who (F) emigrated with you, and a believing woman if she presented herself to the prophet, if the prophet wanted that He marries her, clearly/purely for you from other than the believers, We had known what We had commanded/imposed/stipulated on them in their wives and what their right (hands) owned/possessed, so that strain/blame/sin not be on you, and God was/is forgiving, merciful.

Heres the root of the word
Waw-ha-Ba = to give/grant/bestow, dedicate, offer as a present/gift.

From this it is clear that the believing women is offering/dediate herself to the prophet. But this offering or dedication is with respect to marriage as is made clear with "if the prophet wanted that he marries her" now your argument is that the woman would first have to be MMA because of 3052 right? If so i still don't get how this becomes a problem. The woman is offering/dedicating herself as an MMA. What word or phrase would you have expected to have been used instead? This question might help me better understand your point.

There is also another point which i'm not sure on to make yet. It's dependent on your reply to my question.

Meanwhile, with the understanding that MMA means slaves, the interpretation for 424 is this ..and not allowed are muhsanat except that they become your slaves, in which case, their status as married becomes null and void.

This sounds highly unreasable. I meant this to be my main argument against MMA=slaves. Would it make sense for marrying muhsinat women to first have them to be slaves?

You have argued that in 2221, a different label was used for slaves, you see, language is our invention,and the lord spoke to us in that language,In any human language, we have words/labels representing a thing and sometimes,a word/label represent more than a thing.Infact, this is the basis of ambiguity in our languages.

Therefore, the fact that a different label was used for slaves is not enough to conclude that MMA can't be taken to mean slaves.

THINK ABOUT IT.

Yes I agree. It could be that MMA and the other word both mean slave. I have thought about this before. I just think it HIGHLY unlikely considering the requierments for marriage to muhsinat. Also, MMA is a phrase right? so why would a phrase that frqeuently occures be replaced by a word which is meant to mean the same thing. The phrase occures more then the word. Where the word slave does occure, it looks like it is clear that the verse is refering to slaves. Look at 2221 where slave does occure. Does that not make it clear that MMA are not slaves?

nimnimak_11

And that is why We are here Debating Whether the Quran Allows Dajjalic type Sex....or if the QUran Allows True Good Sex.
Personnally, it is Obvious with the Context of the QUran, that Marriage is Closer to the Goodness and Promiscous/Fornication is closer to the Dajjalic Nature of Evil.

D Peace/Salaam

Salam R

That's not what we're debating. We're discussing wether sex is exclusive to marraige or not. In other words wether sex before marriage is haram or not.

zubairus

Peace nimnimak

Salam Zubairus
Yes

Yep. For this generation anyway. It would be questionable whether sex with slaves would have been permitted prior to marriage in the past.

Omeiza advised me to look at those verses but I did not fully understand what he wanted me to pick out then. I'l quote 3350 and highlight what i think your directing me towards and comment on it. If i've commented on the wrong thing, please correct me. So heres 3350
You, you the prophet, that We, We permitted/allowed for you your wives/spouses those who you gave their rewards (dowries), and what your right (hand) owned/possessed from what God bestowed upon you, and your paternal uncles' daughters, and your paternal aunts' daughters, and your maternal uncles' daughters, and your maternal aunts' daughters, who (F) emigrated with you, and a believing woman if she presented herself to the prophet, if the prophet wanted that He marries her, clearly/purely for you from other than the believers, We had known what We had commanded/imposed/stipulated on them in their wives and what their right (hands) owned/possessed, so that strain/blame/sin not be on you, and God was/is forgiving, merciful.

Heres the root of the word
Waw-ha-Ba = to give/grant/bestow, dedicate, offer as a present/gift.

From this it is clear that the believing women is offering/dediate herself to the prophet. But this offering or dedication is with respect to marriage as is made clear with "if the prophet wanted that he marries her" now your argument is that the woman would first have to be MMA because of 3052 right? If so i still don't get how this becomes a problem. The woman is offering/dedicating herself as an MMA. What word or phrase would you have expected to have been used instead? This question might help me better understand your point.

There is also another point which i'm not sure on to make yet. It's dependent on your reply to my question.

This sounds highly unreasable. I meant this to be my main argument against MMA=slaves. Would it make sense for marrying muhsinat women to first have them to be slaves?

Yes I agree. It could be that MMA and the other word both mean slave. I have thought about this before. I just think it HIGHLY unlikely considering the requierments for marriage to muhsinat. Also, MMA is a phrase right? so why would a phrase that frqeuently occures be replaced by a word which is meant to mean the same thing. The phrase occures more then the word. Where the word slave does occure, it looks like it is clear that the verse is refering to slaves. Look at 2221 where slave does occure. Does that not make it clear that MMA are not slaves?

,

You may need to understand my concept of slaves/MMA in our context of discussion so that you can get me right, they are the captives of war. They could be men , women , married, unmarried.
By this, what I understand from 424 is that .... and not allowed for you are married womem except when you have them as captives/slaves/MMA. This implies that a married woman is not allowed for you except when she becomes yours as captive/slaves/MMA. I hope I ve made myself clear.

With regard to 3350-52, It says allowed for you are your wives that you have paid their dowries........ What do you understand from this? Allowed for you to have sex with or to marry them? I opted for to have sex with. This permission extends/covers the rest women mentioned there in the verse. But a provision strickly for the prophet.
My argument here is this, among those mentioned,we have a beliving woman that offers herself for the prophet. If a woman offers herself, this act of offering creat a bond, yet this woman was not described/label as MMA because MMA was mentioned seperately.Can you now understand my line of thinking?

Furthermore,daughter of the brother of prophet's father,daughter of the sister of prophet's father were equally mentioned.There were bonds between them and the prophet, yet they were not referred to as MMA.

This is my arguement againt the thesis of MMA=Those possesed by your oath/those you have bond with.

THINK ABOUT IT.

ZUBAIRUS

nimnimak_11

Peace Zubairus

You may need to understand my concept of slaves/MMA in our context of discussion so that you can get me right, they are the captives of war. They could be men , women , married, unmarried.
By this, what I understand from 424 is that .... and not allowed for you are married womem except when you have them as captives/slaves/MMA. This implies that a married woman is not allowed for you except when she becomes yours as captive/slaves/MMA. I hope I ve made myself clear.

Yes. I think I understand what you mean in this case clearly. So this would no longer mean slave then right? As a captive of war is surely different to a slave. Perhaps this is why a different word is used for slave and the phrase MMA for captives of war as you suggest. But there are some serious problems in my opinion with your understanding.

Let's begin with what I see as a problem in understanding muhsinat as married women
425 If any of you have not the means wherewith to wed free believing women (muhsinat), they may wed believing girls from among those whom your right hands

Can the above women really be understood as married women considering context?

More of a problem is this
235-6 talks of how there is no blame on an individual if they un-guard their private parts in front of their spouses and their MMA. If we take MMA to mean slaves or captives of war then that would mean that with no kind of oath or agreement you can just unguard your private parts to slaves and captives whom you do not even know. This would not make sense. Do you get my point?

With regard to 3350-52, It says allowed for you are your wives that you have paid their dowries........ What do you understand from this? Allowed for you to have sex with or to marry them? I opted for to have sex with. This permission extends/covers the rest women mentioned there in the verse. But a provision strickly for the prophet.

It is really unclear because this is only for the prophet and thus i think only he was meant to understand. But from what it looks like, i would take allowed for you to have sex as they are refered to as wives (azwaaj) but it could be something else that we are unaware of but i agree that most likely it is sex.

My argument here is this, among those mentioned,we have a beliving woman that offers herself for the prophet. If a woman offers herself, this act of offering creat a bond, yet this woman was not described/label as MMA because MMA was mentioned seperately.Can you now understand my line of thinking?

Sort of but i don't see how it creates a problem. You say that this act of offering creates a bond but MMA= those you have an oath with. So that's why i asked you how else would you have expected it to have been written in AQ. If a woman offers herself to a man in terms of an oath or as a fiance or something else, i don't get how some other word should be used in place of offer could you please further clarify? I've thought on this.

Furthermore,daughter of the brother of prophet's father,daughter of the sister of prophet's father were equally mentioned.There were bonds between them and the prophet, yet they were not referred to as MMA.

I thought MMA meant those whom you have an oath with and not a bond.

zubairus

peace nimnimak

Yes. I think I understand what you mean in this case clearly. So this would no longer mean slave then right? As a captive of war is surely different to a slave. Perhaps this is why a different word is used for slave and the phrase MMA for captives of war as you suggest. But there are some serious problems in my opinion with your understanding.

Let's begin with what I see as a problem in understanding muhsinat as married women
425 If any of you have not the means wherewith to wed free believing women (muhsinat), they may wed believing girls from among those whom your right hands

Can the above women really be understood as married women considering context?

Yes I agree at the moment that there is a problem with my interpretation as married women,but I am contemplating on some point.

But in the meantime,

It is really unclear because this is only for the prophet and thus i think only he was meant to understand. But from what it looks like, i would take allowed for you to have sex as they are refered to as wives (azwaaj) but it could be something else that we are unaware of but i agree that most likely it is sex.

If an instruction is only for the consumption of prophet which oly him can understand, why is it mention in the quran which is for all of us? For what purpose?

Sort of but i don't see how it creates a problem. You say that this act of offering creates a bond but MMA= those you have an oath with. So that's why i asked you how else would you have expected it to have been written in AQ. If a woman offers herself to a man in terms of an oath or as a fiance or something else, i don't get how some other word should be used in place of offer could you please further clarify? I've thought on this.

I thought MMA meant those whom you have an oath with and not a bond.

God willing, I will reinstate/re explain my point for clarity, but please let me know in a very clear terms with examples what you mean by 'those whom you have an oath with'.
Looking forward to seeeing you explanation.

Peace.

ZUBAIRUS

nimnimak_11

Peace Zubairus

If an instruction is only for the consumption of prophet which oly him can understand, why is it mention in the quran which is for all of us? For what purpose?

I understand what your saying but the scripture was also for the prophet as well as for us. To make what i'm saying slightly clearer think of it like this. In the Quran there are verses that are directed at the women. Those verse are for the women and not for the men. Similarly the verses for the prophet are for the prophet.

God willing, I will reinstate/re explain my point for clarity, but please let me know in a very clear terms with examples what you mean by 'those whom you have an oath with'.
Looking forward to seeeing you explanation.

No problem.

43 And if you fear that you cannot be just to the orphans, then you may marry those who are agreeable to you of the women two, and three, and four. But if you fear you will not be fair, then only one, or whom you maintain by your oaths. This is best that you do not face financial hardship.

From this i consider MMA to be possibly two things. Either a nanny or a caretaker of some sort or a girlfriend. My reasoning for this is that this is what is advised if one fears that they cannot be just to the orphans. Slave may also be equally possible so far

But then looking at 235-6, I take slave out of the equation for reasons i explained in my last post and I also take a nanny out of the eqution because it would not make sense to be able to unguard one's private parts to a nanny. Thus I consider something like a girlfriend as the strongest option.

235 And they guard their private parts.
236 Except around their mates, or those who are maintained by their oaths, they are free from blame.

I then consider the possibility of MMA to mean something like a girlfriend stronger with this verse

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....
So far we have concluded that to marry muhsinat, they must come from MMA. From the above is it also not such that to marry fatayat, they must come from MMA is well? The only other occurence of fatayat according to studyquran's project root thing is in 2433 and that verse does not say that fatayat can be married without them having to come from MMA.

So with fatayat also a class that must come from MMA, is there any class that can be married without them having to come from MMA? I have not heard of any other class with respect to marriage.

Anyway from what i've discussed i currently think that MMA= something like a girl/boyfriend of some sort.

From what i've discussed, so far think that MMA is something like a girlfirend. I've not come across the usage of the phrase MMA in the Quran which could imply otherwise when i searched this phrase in globalquran and looked at the verses that came up.

What do you think?

san

But then looking at 235-6, I take slave out of the equation for reasons i explained in my last post and I also take a nanny out of the eqution because it would not make sense to be able to unguard one's private parts to a nanny. Thus I consider something like a girlfriend as the strongest option.

235 And they guard their private parts.
236 Except around their mates, or those who are maintained by their oaths, they are free from blame.

Perhaps the only problem is in interpreting 235?

Because if you don't translate 235 as "abstaining from sex" or as having anything to do with sexual intercourse, it wouldn't matter what your translation of "MMA" is (which is then made irrelevant to the subject).

SarahY

Peace All )

I?ve been doing some reading about this topic so I thought I shall share my ideas, forgive me if it?s been discussed but take some thought.

Before we can say if sex is ok outside of marriage we need to understand what marriage is.

I noticed when reading, the terms ?nissa? and ?azwaj? are linked with wife. However the term ?nissa? is not exclusive to wives. Azwaj seems to better fit the criteria. Azwaj can be understood as something like you, your pair, a pair. I need to look at word occurrences for z-wa-j to see if it?s limited to spouses.

What I think about ?nikkah?. nikkah to me is a relationship. So I guess it could be seen as a marriage. However not necessarily. The ones that do zina do nikkah with each other (243) If we conclude that the zina people can never do nikkah with other people that would be illogical because that means we only accept them as lewd and that they can never be forgiven. But rather they seek a relationship with their kind because that?s how they survive and it?s what they seek.

Now for nikkah to be permissible in our case, I think it needs witnesses. Quran doesn?t stipulate any ceremony. If people choose that, that is their choice but anyway you might think why I think this (in terms of witnesses). The verse 652 indicates when a couple is going for a divorce that they bring a party from each other?s side to help with reconciliation or basically eventuate the parting. This verse indicates that somewhere down the line their relationship needs to be known. Furthermore I believe verse 2235 is against secrecy in relations. To me this is evidence nikkah should be known.

Verse 3350 makes it clear we can marry/nikkah with MMA. So by that we know MMA can?t equal a slave however MMA is ?what your right hand posses? possess indicates control. I?m not sure if I can clearly define MMA but I believe it would be someone such as a close relative in your control (blood or not blood related). Once you marry/nikkah an MMA i believe they become your azwaj, because you are taking them as that not taking them as an mma.

1671 says that there are people who do not share their sustenance with MMA's that they would become equal. So I assume they are not kids why would parents be afraid that their kids will come to their equal status?

Now read 425, basically we can put it in 2 categories one, a girl independent another being taken care of (having an oath/control) of somebody (MMA). If you can?t find an independent girl (girl 1) than you can marry/nikkah the MMA (girl 2). For MMA you take permission from their guardians. (I need to look more into this verse some things I don?t understand)

If the MMA?s have an oath or are in the control of someone, how could it equal to they have my oath for exposing sexual parts/pleasure/relationships with them? I think this claim is illogical. Besides read 2433 MMA?s can?t be coerced to nikkah to the ones in their possession! Possession as in the one that looks after them. So if you take a relationship with someone they don't become your MMA, if you want a relationship WITH an MMA you need permission (425)

So my thoughts of MMA have changed.

In regards to f-r-j, I?m looking into it still.

Peace.

zubairus

Peace nimnimak,

I thought MMA meant those whom you have an oath with and not a bond.

I really want to know from you the meaning of oath with example in the context of our discussion.

I then consider the possibility of MMA to mean something like a girlfriend stronger with this verse

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....
So far we have concluded that to marry muhsinat, they must come from MMA. From the above is it also not such that to marry fatayat, they must come from MMA is well? The only other occurence of fatayat according to studyquran's project root thing is in 2433 and that verse does not say that fatayat can be married without them having to come from MMA.

So with fatayat also a class that must come from MMA, is there any class that can be married without them having to come from MMA? I have not heard of any other class with respect to marriage.

Anyway from what i've discussed i currently think that MMA= something like a girl/boyfriend of some sort.

From what i've discussed, so far think that MMA is something like a girlfirend. I've not come across the usage of the phrase MMA in the Quran which could imply otherwise when i searched this phrase in globalquran and looked at the verses that came up.

What do you think?

Let us go back to 3350-52

O prophet, We have made lawful for you the wives to whom you
have already given their dowries, and those who are maintained
by your oath, as granted to you by God; and the daughters of the
brothers of your father, and the daughters of the sisters of your
father, and the daughters of the brothers of your mother, and the
daughters of the sisters of your mother - those who emigrated
with you. Also, the believing woman who had decreed herself to
the prophet, the prophet may marry her if he wishes, as a privilege
given only to you and not to the believers. We have already
decreed their rights in regard to their spouses and those who are
maintained by their oaths. This is to spare you any hardship. God
is Forgiver, Merciful.
3351 You may postpone whom you will of them, and you may receive
whom you will. And whomsoever you seek of those whom you
have set aside then there is no sin upon you. Such is best that they
may be comforted and not grieve, and that they may all be pleased
287
3351 ? 3361
with what you give them. And God knows what is in your hearts.
And God is Knowledgeable, Compassionate.
3352 No women are lawful to you beyond this, nor that you change
them for other wives, even though you may be attracted by their
beauty, except what is maintained by your oath. And God is
Watcher over all things.

Do you mean the quran is refering to the prophet's girl friends where MMA were mentioned in the above verses?

THINK ABOUT IT

ZUBAIRUS

zubairus

Peace nimnimak,

In 425, the quran said if you do not have the means to wed muhsanat,you may mary MMA from fatayatikum.......

Are you saying by this, if a person has no the means to marry muhsanat, he should go and marry his girl friend ?

THINK ABOUT IT

ZUBAIRUS

liquiddharma

Salam R

That's not what we're debating. We're discussing wether sex is exclusive to marraige or not. In other words wether sex before marriage is haram or not.

I don't believe there is any such thing as sex before marriage. Sex is marriage. Adultery is divorce. So the sins associated with relationships which do not follow the rules of marriage are not about having a 'different kind of sex' - no such thing exists. Rather they are sins of ignoring the proper procedure.

How can they be the same when MMA are part of the group that are permitted for marriage? Once you marry them they are no longer MMA.
Thank you for the video. We should keep these things in mind.

MMA and spouse can be the same because the two kinds of spouse are the wife and the husband.

Hence 424 - listing people you can't be married to - "And the married from the women except what your oaths possess"
actually means "and the married women except as their husband".

unknownuser

Nima , i think, wants the goodies without having to take up the responsibilites which a sexual relationship may throw in his face. Although it's not a concept within the quran , i wonder if it will take off within the quranic community as it has done in the western culture- i doubt it though.

As Zubairus said which prophets used to have girlfriends, any? Any historical facts apart from the religious texts?

peace

nimnimak_11

Perhaps the only problem is in interpreting 235?

Because if you don't translate 235 as "abstaining from sex" or as having anything to do with sexual intercourse, it wouldn't matter what your translation of "MMA" is (which is then made irrelevant to the subject).

You are right.
That could well be the problem. But i have not seen any strong Quranic refutaions yet. Could you provide Quranic support for why sex with MMA should be haram when it is permissble for us to unguard our privates to them like we unguard them to our spouses? People have argued to this and said that this (unguarding) is not the equivalent of sex. I did not claim this. I claimed that what it does mean is that one is free to ungaurd those parts which would mean that sex would become part of the things permissible. Unless this is restricted or limited by the Quran in some other verse which i have not seen.

The word guard and the fact that MMA is often mentioned alongside azwaaj and the fact that to marry muhsinat they must come from MMA is IMO pretty strong in conveying that sex with MMA is halal. The issue in hand would be what qualifies one as an MMA.

If there was like a verse that said that sex is exclusive to marriage or if there was no MMA in 235-6 then that would work. But UNLESS we as the readers don't automatically assume that sex is exclusive to marriages, this won't work. And I don't see how we can be justified in assuming this.

unknownuser

You are right.
That could well be the problem. But i have not seen any strong Quranic refutaions yet. Could you provide Quranic support for why sex with MMA should be haram when it is permissble for us to unguard our privates to them like we unguard them to our spouses? People have argued to this and said that this (unguarding) is not the equivalent of sex. I did not claim this. I claimed that what it does mean is that one is free to ungaurd those parts which would mean that sex would become part of the things permissible. Unless this is restricted or limited by the Quran in some other verse which i have not seen.

The word guard and the fact that MMA is often mentioned alongside azwaaj and the fact that to marry muhsinat they must come from MMA is IMO pretty strong in conveying that sex with MMA is halal. The issue in hand would be what qualifies one as an MMA.

If there was like a verse that said that sex is exclusive to marriage or if there was no MMA in 235-6 then that would work. But UNLESS we as the readers don't automatically assume that sex is exclusive to marriages, this won't work. And I don't see how we can be justified in assuming this.

Hi Nima,

Do these Ayah's go some way to depict who we may have sex with Br?

So can only wives bear children; doesn?t girlfriend accidently bear?..

025.074
YUSUFALI And those who pray, "Our Lord! Grant unto us wives and offspring who will be the comfort of our eyes, and give us (the grace) to lead the righteous."
025.075
YUSUFALI Those are the ones who will be rewarded with the highest place in heaven, because of their patient constancy therein shall they be met with salutations and peace,

They were approaching Men rather then those who would be their wives Azwaj where went the girlfriends?

026.165
YUSUFALI "Of all the creatures in the world, will ye approach males,
026.166
YUSUFALI "And leave those whom Allah has created for you to be your mates? Nay, ye are a people transgressing (all limits)!"

Again children only from wives, how about the children a girl friend may get?

016.072
YUSUFALI And Allah has made for you mates (and companions) of your own nature, and made for you, out of them, sons and daughters and grandchildren, and provided for you sustenance of the best will they then believe in vain things, and be ungrateful for Allah's favours?-

Children from wives!

013.038
YUSUFALI We did send messengers before thee, and appointed for them wives and children and it was never the part of a messenger to bring a sign except as Allah permitted (or commanded). For each period is a Book (revealed).

peace