How sex before Marriage is not haram (prohibited) according to the Quran
-
And if frj is only going to be taken as protection from sex than fine let?s take that argument. YOU CAN HAVE SEX WITH MMA. The ONLY time you can have sex with mma is if you do nikkah with them. Without nikkah no sex with mma. So yes you can have sex with mma but not without nikkah.
Not so, according to 235-6. It is also important to note the "or" in their, showing that one can't have both a spouse/spouses and an MMA/MMAs at the same time, which would be adultery/"zina".
-
Peace progressive, all.
what do you understand from 235-6 and even that be the case, i wasn't talking about THAT though i'm not sure i agree with you.
you can have sex with mma when you do nikkah with them what evidence do you have contrary to this? and is your information in synch with other verses in relation to mma?
the problem with this whole analogy/interpretation is the understanding of mma, muhsinat and frj (in particular the ones in bold).
when enough evidence is put forward about these terms in relation to all occurrences then i think we can have a better discussion but if we wanna take strawmans theory and pick on choose things we'll be here for ever.
Salam.
-
what do you understand from 235-6 and even that be the case, i wasn't talking about THAT though i'm not sure i agree with you.
I don't really understand the above.. Please phrase it more clearly.
you can have sex with mma when you do nikkah with them what evidence do you have contrary to this? and is your information in synch with other verses in relation to mma?
I cited 235-6, showing my position. What is the evidence for your position on sex with MMAs only being allowed during marriage? 235-6 suggests otherwise.
-
I don?t agree with you, my argument wasn?t about that verse. If that?s the only verse you got in relation to mma being ok for sex (without nikkah) then I believe your claim is weak.
Sex with mma is ok with nikkah, see verse 425. Actually I just read asads notes, read
Lit., "or those whom their right hands possess" (aw ma malakat aymanuhum). Many of the commentators assume unquestioningly that this relates to female slaves, and that the particle aw ("or" denotes a permissible alternative. This interpretation is, in my opinion, inadmissible inasmuch as it is based on the assumption that sexual intercourse with ones female slave is permitted without marriage an assumption, which is contradicted by the Qur?an itself (see 43, 24, 25 and 2432, with the corresponding notes). Nor is this the only objection to the above-mentioned interpretation. Since the Qur?an applies the term ??believers" to men and women alike, and since the term azwaj ("spouses", too, denotes both the male and the female partners in marriage, there is no reason for attributing to the phrase ma malakat aymanuhum the meaning of "their female slaves??; and since, on the other hand, it is out of the question that female and male slaves could have been referred to here it is obvious that this phrase does not relate to slaves at all, but has the same meaning as in 424 - namely, "those whom they rightfully possess through wedlock (see note 26 on 424) - with the significant difference that in the present context this expression relates to both husbands and wives, who "rightfully possess" one another by virtue of marriage. On the basis of this interpretation, the particle aw which precedes this clause does not denote an alternative ("or" but is, rather, in the nature of an explanatory amplification, more or less analogous to the phrase "in other words" or "that is", thus giving to the whole sentence the meaning, "save with their spouses - that is, those whom they rightfully possess ", etc. (Cf. a similar construction 2562 - ??for him who has the will to take thought -that is , has the will to be grateful".)(Quran Ref 236 )
-
Peace Nima
Nope, I dont think so I havent looked to deep into it so I really shouldnt comment. Ill tell you my thoughts even though I dont feel confident about it.. so excuse the ignorance.
muhsinat can also be translated as married women. You cant marry married women except that she is under your oath, as in except if shes married to you. Remember Quran came through a time where people were already married.
The question of mma isnt really the issue the question is who are the muhsinat or what is muhsinat..
Mma can be taken differently. Except in this case who is mma to you would be your wife already...
I dont think so.
Read all occurrences of MMA and tell me how you understand mma. Try do it without any thought of proving mma means partner because clearly verses 2433 and 425 doesnt prove it.
Try doing it or even try proving mma is a relationship of how you think it is. If you cant in all occurrences then obviously there is something wrong. Its better to do research without a concluding thought otherwise our bias is steered.
Meaning they are permissible to marry see 3350 we are allowed to marry from the mma, they are halal for us to seek marriage. They are not halal for us to have for fun. Read 2433.
Maybe its a long stretch but I was putting an interpretation on it. Doesnt mean it is true. Frj indicates an opening or sexual organs so protecting an opening, I spun my opinion on it, doesnt mean its right.
And if frj is only going to be taken as protection from sex than fine lets take that argument. YOU CAN HAVE SEX WITH MMA. The ONLY time you can have sex with mma is if you do nikkah with them. Without nikkah no sex with mma. So yes you can have sex with mma but not without nikkah.
Im convinced youre prob not. Keep researching and share your findings. Im done for now
Salam.
Salam Sarah
I looked before at every occurence of right hands using globalquran but i've done it again and the more I look at it, the more this implies a serious realtionnship. You do the same without any preconcieved notion of MMA. What could it be? Even if we were to understand MMA to mean different things still in some places, MMA stands out as someone who your in a strong relationship with.
I'l quote some verses
43]
If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or MMA, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice.Look at the above, what is a good solution in place of a wife to help look after orphans? Possibly a nanny right? Ok but then but what nanny would the private parts be exclusive to that is not exclusive to one's father, sister and everyone else except azwaaj?
Also (prohibited are) women already married, except MMA.
If any of you have not the means wherewith to wed musinat, they may wed fatayat from your MMA (i could have translated the last part wrong. I'm just trying to put MMA in place of the english used)
The above says IF you can't marry muhsinat (suggesting it's better to marry muhsinat) then marry fatayat who are your MMA. Bear in mind that to marry muhsinat they must still come from MMA.
Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or whom their right hands possess,- for (in their case) they are free from blame.
Wouldn't someone whom your in a relationship best fit the above?Note that it dosn't say that these MMA have to be married. If MMA are to be married then they become spouse. MMA is mentioned as a category of it's own and spouse is mentioned of a category of it's own.
3350 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.....
7029 And those who guard their private parts.
7030 Except around their spouses or those maintained by their oaths, there is no blame.Only MMA and Spouses are exclusive to the private parts.
I'm gonna have a try at refuting one of your key arguments. See what you think
Ok. Your understanding is that sex is not allowed unless Quran makes it allowed right? I argue nothing is haram unless given or ruled out in someway. For example i think for one to sit down and let's say play 6 hours of playstation nonstop is a transgression (this is clear) and thus forbidden. Now with sex one would have to personally automatically assume that sex is a transgression if the nikah contract is not in place. Thus one would automatically assume that sex with MMA would fall under transgression even if it is done in the best of conditions (loving relationship) or fahsha and thus in ONLY That way would sex be exclusive to marriages IMO. The question is wether we should judge like this considering all verses related to MMA and their relations and similarities to spouses. Also i don't see how an impartial person would automatically assume sex in a loving, commiting relationship without the papers proving nikah to be a fahsha or transgression.
Ambiguity would occure in verses like 235-6 and 2431. In 2431 relaxing of the dress code is mentioned in front of those specified. In 235-6 the private parts are allowed to be unguarded. What could the private parts being unguarded mean? Is it only a matter of exposure or somthing more? Remember MMA are mentioned alongside spouses here so in someways surely MMA must bear some relation to a spouse right?
Oh just one more thing, how does 2433 and 425 reject MMA as like a gf/bf or something on those lines?
peace -
Hey can I just ask while were talking about this.. is it true that the quran only states the punishment for infidelity in marriage (which is prison/100 lashes) but doesnt really state any punishment for sex outside of marriage? And also the quran has made it pretty clear that fornication is frowned upon as far as quran is concerned, so isnt sex outside marriage considered fornication? If not, how? And also it does seem like the people 'whom your right hand possesses' are people who has given you their trust, or consent(bf/gf) just by reading the ayah (it might been taken out of context i dont know but just reading it would make me understand it that way) but growing up my teachers taught me that the people referred to were slaves, which dont exist anymore in the modern world. But I've always taught why would you be allowed to have sex with slaves but not people ur in a relationship with?? Doesnt make sense!
-
This is a long post. It may benefit you. I hope it reminds.
Firstly
The arguments you've put up have been answered. If you want further discussion on those points, point to the answers, fault them and then we might discuss them. I think that it is better in the sight of God to discuss peacefully or leave peacefully then to provoke people by accusing them as kafirs for one belief. JUST THINK ON THIS FROM A MORAL POINT OF VIEW.This is not true, all you did was ignore it and then arrogantly dismiss it by saying "I seperate the two because from AQ i get the impression that they are seperate.....Some argue that they are the same thing but i doubt it."
You did not, because you cannot, address the grammatical FACT which utterly annihilates your argument. Simply saying "I doubt it" is not an answer. There are no points to answer because you clearly reject the truth that "aw" in 236 does not correspond to "or" in english. "Simple" already gave you an example of the use of "aw" as a clarifier in 2200 and told you to check a dictionary, but you ignored him. I have made my own points regarding the grammatical uses of "aw", but you refuse to address them.
Dont be disingenuous, this has nothing to do with being "peaceful"; no one is threatening you with physical harm. The fact is you are twisting verses in scripture to suit your own agenda. You have gone on for 12 pages attempting to "find the truth" and in the process turned the quran into inconsistent nonsense (when read as a whole). The only moral thing to do, for someone who believes that the quran is the word of God, is to refute you and expose your dishonesty.
Ok heres the long part of the post. Read it all before making judgements.
How do you plan on figuring out what God is telling you without the use of the faculties he has given you?
Nice try at diverting the conversation, but futile. I have never said don't use logic or reason, in fact it is impossible to do anything without them; they are objective categories of thought, not subjective interpretations as you would have us believe. In other words, they are given to us in order that we may discern the truth from falsehood. It's not "my logic and reason" or "your logic and reason", it is either logical or it is not.
Say you thought the Quran told you to go and beat women (it does not say this but this is an example. Perhaps you may hear) Your heart and reasoning tell you not to. What do you do? What's more likely? That your interpretation of the scripture is wrong or your heart and reason?
Your example of Dal-Ra-Ba as "beat" only serves to make my point for me! No one could read the quran, in its enirety, and reasonably argue that beating one's wife conforms to the spirit and tenor of scripture; it most clearly does not! Yet this is exactly what YOU have done, you take a verse (236), use a poor translation of it and then use this to build your case for (ultimately) one night stands. Ignoring the tenor and spirit of sacred scripture. Right now my "heart and reason" tell me that "striking" my wife is bad, but if she randomly decided to put a gun to my head, my "heart and reason" might feel differently about the need to strike her just to protect myself. So your argument is worthless! Moreover, your use of the term "reason" is so ambiguous that it becomes meaningless. The only way I can EVEN INTERPRET scripture is because of my God given "reason". Thus, there is no conflict between "reason and interpretation"; if my interpretation is wrong, it is because my reasoning is wrong!
Your heart and reason and logic will hopefully guide you to the truth of the Quran. But if you ignore and focus ONLY on your interpretation or of anothers, you may never reach the truth of the true interpretation. You would not have acknowledged, you would have blindly followed. Similar to idol-worshipers (please note that i am not calling you this) they blindly followed.
This is sad, but extremely revealing. My "heart, reason and logic" do not "guide" me, it is GOD ALONE who does the guiding. This is just amazing "logic"; according to you If someone has an "interpretation" they are ignoring reason and logic, the only way to get the "true interpretation" is to avoid focusing on "interpretations" and this, to you, would be reasonable and logical! So why don't you take your own advice STOP "focusing" on your "interpretation" of 236 as well as others' "interpretation" and follow your "heart, reason and logic" to non "interpretation" and pure silence. Right, it's pretty obvious you reject the notion of a divinely revealed truth. that MUST be accepted, in order to be faithful to God. Instead, everything in scripture is just someone's "interpretation" and we can never know if they're right or wrong, and so we'll just keep going on and on forever "discussing" and debating with no possibility of a clear answer ever being reached.
There are somethings such as the forbidding of swine which may not make sense to the reason. But it does not go against the heart as you are not harming anyone else. So considering the strength of the likelyhood of the accuracy of the interpretation that swine is haram with respect to the LITTLE problem it would cause when reasoning out, you don't have swine.
uhh no! Avoiding the eating of pig is perfectly within reason. Our Lord has clearly and unambiguously forbidden it...that's the reason!! Get it? We believe in order to understand, not the other way around! Abraham did not ask to understand WHY God wanted him to sacrifice his son, he had perfect faith that if this was God's command, he should do it, no matter what his "heart and reason" told him. That's what submission to God's will is all about! You put aside your own inclinations and follow what God has commanded, either through direct revelation as above, or through sacred scripture.
Now think about the lashing for Zina. Think about how understandings have changed even though they looked like they could not. Some recieved a lashing of the sort that was actually not prescribed by the Quran. Some understand the lashing as meant to not hurt physically and as purely a humiliating punishment. But people back then who thought they had interpreted it right decided that they should ignore their heart and reason because they thought they had the right interpretation whereas most likely they did not. They though their interpretation is what God is telling them forgetting that the heart and reason are from God.
More nonsese. The punishment of lashing is very clear in the quran, so the reason why "muslims" deviated was because their "heart and reason" led them to want more than what God had decreed. What you seem to think of as "heart and reason" are simply buzzwords for emotions and feelings/desires. Everything is from God, but YOU are responsible for following your own perverse desires. Our emotions/feelings are not of God in the sense that whatever our "hearts and reason" tell us is good, is actuallty true.
How would they justify themselves in the sight of GOD?
Would the justification be greatly different to a suicide bomber who kills innocents? Both justifications would be something like I though that ALLAH the most holy lord condoned this. That is what I understood from the Quran. So if it's asked of them why did you ignore your heart and reason....they would be in trouble then. Clearly.Somehow you keep making my point for me!! This is the whole issue, you cannot read the quran, as a whole, and justify murder, without ignoring the tenor of scripture. Suicide bombers don't do this anyways, they would claim that "innocents", as you put them, are as much combatants as armed soldiers. So the actual debate would be over who is actually a non combatant.
Whereas those who give more value to their heart and reason then their interpretation, and thus are much less likely to commit acts such as suicide or lashing, would be better able to justify themselves in the sight of God.
You're really confused, there's no conflict between "reason and "interpretation", if your "interpretation" is wrong it's because your "reasoning" is wrong.
If it says lash in the Quran and they had refused, they could justify themselves with Although it seemed pretty clear in the Quran, it was also clear in my heart and reason that this is wrong. As you gave me heart and reason, i concluded most likely that i or others have misinterpreted the Quran and thus i did not lash because of the heart and reason you gave me told me not to. Which group sound more kafir to you? Think on this.
Just a quick theological point WE don't justify ourselves before God, HE justfies us, and He knows who is/will be justified. All you would be saying by putting forth such an argument, would be to acknowledge that you made your own ideas about right and wrong greater than what God has clearly spelled out. You would be denying the revealed truth that God made his scripture clear, unambiguous and with no crookedness. In fact by saying this you would be saying that God was not capable of giving clear instructions, despite the fact that the whole purpose of divine revelation was to guide mankind.
How else do you expect to get to the truth without requesting guidance and thinking about what the truth could be? Also don't be so insulting to some others (me included) Did it not cross your mind that you may be wrong about them?
One should request guidance from God, not from men! We find the truth clearly spelled out in the scripture, the basic and fundamental truths necessary for salvation are not hidden. When God tells us not to make anything equal with him, it does not take a whole lot of "thinking" to figure out "what the truth could be" in this commandment. The supreme irony in all this is that you ultimately agree with the sect called "Islam" that the quran is not clear in and of itself, one man cannot simply read it and understand what he must do to save his soul.
Insulting? this whole thread is an insult. Your condescending and "pseudo intellectual" tone is particularly annoying. You act like you only want to"find the truth", but you use intellectually dishonest and deceptive arguments and tactics. Regarding my use of "Kafir" it is simply an apt description of your approach, and I think it is obvious after 12 pages of this ridiculous "discussion". You should be less concerned about your "feelings" and be more concerned with standing up for the truth. You can start by explaining to everyone why the conjunction "aw" denotes solely an "alternative option", when the dictionaries say otherwise, and the Quran uses it otherwise.
-
Hey can I just ask while were talking about this.. is it true that the quran only states the punishment for infidelity in marriage (which is prison/100 lashes) but doesnt really state any punishment for sex outside of marriage? And also the quran has made it pretty clear that fornication is frowned upon as far as quran is concerned, so isnt sex outside marriage considered fornication? If not, how? And also it does seem like the people 'whom your right hand possesses' are people who has given you their trust, or consent(bf/gf) just by reading the ayah (it might been taken out of context i dont know but just reading it would make me understand it that way) but growing up my teachers taught me that the people referred to were slaves, which dont exist anymore in the modern world. But I've always taught why would you be allowed to have sex with slaves but not people ur in a relationship with?? Doesnt make sense!
I'm not sure on the punishment. Check it out. I'm not sure on fornication. The word in use is Fahasha. If one takes that to mean forniation and then takes fornication to mean any kind of sex outside of marriage, then that probabely means no sex outside marriage. But that rests upon what you take fahasha for it has different meanings. Slaves don't makes sense based on other verses. If you look through the thread you'l get the answer i think. I'm 99% sure that MMA is not slave.
-
Salam Hoppean
This is not true, all you did was ignore it and then arrogantly dismiss it by saying "I seperate the two because from AQ i get the impression that they are seperate.....Some argue that they are the same thing but i doubt it."
OH MY GOD. Look at what you've written! you say "all you did was ignore it and then arrogantly dismiss it" How can i be ignoring it when i'm commenting on it!? No i did not ignore it, I gave my opinion and ended it there. Others have brought this issue up and i gave them a better answer because i believe them to be more openminded in this discussion. THE ANSWERS ARE ON THIS THREAD CHECK THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IF SOMETHING's NOT BEEN ANSWERED PUT IT UP AS A QUESTION AND THEN I'L DIRECT YOU TO IT IN THIS THREAD.
Cut down on the hatred.
You did not, because you cannot, address the grammatical FACT which utterly annihilates your argument. Simply saying "I doubt it" is not an answer.
I'll address this at the end with of this reply with an exmaple. but for now
this grammatical FACT as you put it can work two ways as far as i know. There is no one set FACT. That means sometimes it works as or sometimes it does not. I am not strong in arabic so i will ask you this in case i misunderstood Simple in any way. In 235-6 could AW not mean or Is it 100% fact that it is used as a clarifier? Be honest.
There are no points to answer because you clearly reject the truth that "aw" in 236 does not correspond to "or" in english.
So nowhere in the Quran AW means "or" then.....?
Dont be disingenuous, this has nothing to do with being "peaceful"; no one is threatening you with physical harm. The fact is you are twisting verses in scripture to suit your own agenda.
Yet you call me arrogant. I'm not twisting things. I'm seeing them as they are without bias. You've hardly got an argument. Your just here to insult from the looks of it and I guess peace is exclusive to physical violence then according to you. Labeling others dishonest, kafir and so on is not provoking anything and is within the boundaries of peace nope
You have gone on for 12 pages attempting to "find the truth" and in the process turned the quran into inconsistent nonsense (when read as a whole). The only moral thing to do, for someone who believes that the quran is the word of God, is to refute you and expose your dishonesty.
I wished you'd at least stuck do that. Refuted me an exposed my so called dishonesty. Keyword being exposed and not just randomly claiming. but instead you come and insult with the set idea that i am being dishonest when you really have no idea of what i'm after.
Nice try at diverting the conversation, but futile. I have never said don't use logic or reason, in fact it is impossible to do anything without them;
I'm glad you accept that. Bear in mind i did not you say you did not.
Your example of Dal-Ra-Ba as "beat" only serves to make my point for me! No one could read the quran, in its enirety, and reasonably argue that beating one's wife conforms to the spirit and tenor of scripture;
True. I'm glad to hear this.
it most clearly does not! Yet this is exactly what YOU have done, you take a verse (236), use a poor translation of it
Just open your mind for a second ok and answer this are MMA really the same as spouse THORUGHOUT THE WHOLE OF THE QURAN??
Also could it not be that Aw could be translated as or?and then use this to build your case for (ultimately) one night stands.
NO I'm not building my case for one night stands. I'm trying to explain that sex with MMA is halal and that MMA are not spouse. The addtional stuff i said in my article were just a relevant experience. I am trying to keep my mind open. I am considering the possibility that i have preconcieved notions about this subject thus I am trying to blok that and keep my mind open.
Ignoring the tenor and spirit of sacred scripture. Right now my "heart and reason" tell me that "striking" my wife is bad, but if she randomly decided to put a gun to my head, my "heart and reason" might feel differently about the need to strike her just to protect myself. So your argument is worthless!
nope
It wasn't meant to serve as an argument, it was meant to serve as an example.Moreover, your use of the term "reason" is so ambiguous that it becomes meaningless.
I've not explained properly.
The only way I can EVEN INTERPRET scripture is because of my God given "reason". Thus, there is no conflict between "reason and interpretation"; if my interpretation is wrong, it is because my reasoning is wrong!
I think if your reason rejects an interpretation, it is because most likely you have the wrong interpretation. Not the above that you've said.
This is sad, but extremely revealing. My "heart, reason and logic" do not "guide" me, it is GOD ALONE who does the guiding.
Sad to me is how anger can cause someone to lose morality at certain times. Nothing happens without the leave of God nor can you will anything that God wills otherwise. I do know this and also believe it. But i also think that you've got to align your will to God if you want to be guided. Thus your reason and heart. They are faculties which Guidance comes through i think.
This is just amazing "logic"; according to you If someone has an "interpretation" they are ignoring reason and logic,
This is just anger blinding someone. When and where did i say that? Quote me? HOW did you get that understanding from what i said??!
the only way to get the "true interpretation" is to avoid focusing on "interpretations" and this, to you, would be reasonable and logical! So why don't you take your own advice STOP "focusing" on your "interpretation" of 236 as well as others' "interpretation" and follow your "heart, reason and logic" to non "interpretation" and pure silence.
DID I SAY THAT!!!!!!!!?????? I'm discussing the Quran here and verses from the Quran here. That's what's been going on in this thread. CHECK.
Right, it's pretty obvious you reject the notion of a divinely revealed truth. that MUST be accepted, in order to be faithful to God. Instead, everything in scripture is just someone's "interpretation" and we can never know if they're right or wrong, and so we'll just keep going on and on forever "discussing" and debating with no possibility of a clear answer ever being reached.
NOPe Discussion helps reach answers. Discussion helps restrengthen a previously held poistion. Discussion helps add more truths to things.
If i'm talking non-sense, then it would be obvious and thus the position of sex exclusive to marriage would strengthen but there is really no need to come out aggresively like you have done here.uhh no! Avoiding the eating of pig is perfectly within reason. Our Lord has clearly and unambiguously forbidden it...that's the reason!! Get it? We believe in order to understand, not the other way around! Abraham did not ask to understand WHY God wanted him to sacrifice his son, he had perfect faith that if this was God's command, he should do it, no matter what his "heart and reason" told him. That's what submission to God's will is all about! You put aside your own inclinations and follow what God has commanded, either through direct revelation as above, or through sacred scripture.
nope..........that's not what i said......
More nonsese. The punishment of lashing is very clear in the quran, so the reason why "muslims" deviated was because their "heart and reason" led them to want more than what God had decreed.
YOU THINK LASHING IS WITHIN THE TENOR AND SACREDNESS AND COMPASSIONESS AND MANY OTHER POSITIVE ATTRIBUTES OF THE SCRIPTURE!????
What you seem to think of as "heart and reason" are simply buzzwords for emotions and feelings/desires. Everything is from God, but YOU are responsible for following your own perverse desires. Our emotions/feelings are not of God in the sense that whatever our "hearts and reason" tell us is good, is actuallty true.
Heart and reason are not desire or emotions. Lust is and a desire it seperate of reason.
You're really confused, there's no conflict between "reason and "interpretation", if your "interpretation" is wrong it's because your "reasoning" is wrong.
I'm not confused but i think AT THE MOMENT your currently blinded by anger.
There should not be. But sometimes there is and that's where most likely your interpretation is wrong and thus you should abstain untill it becomes clear to you via your reason when you further understand the scripture and why it has set such a law.Just a quick theological point WE don't justify ourselves before God, HE justfies us, and He knows who is/will be justified. All you would be saying by putting forth such an argument, would be to acknowledge that you made your own ideas about right and wrong greater than what God has clearly spelled out. You would be denying the revealed truth that God made his scripture clear, unambiguous and with no crookedness. In fact by saying this you would be saying that God was not capable of giving clear instructions, despite the fact that the whole purpose of divine revelation was to guide mankind
No he judges us by what we have done and WHY we have done. I am trying to understand what God has made right or wrong using the tools he has given me. Get it? I am not making my own criteria.
We find the truth clearly spelled out in the scripture, the basic and fundamental truths necessary for salvation are not hidden.
Somethings are not clear. With discussion they gain clarity at times.
When God tells us not to make anything equal with him, it does not take a whole lot of "thinking" to figure out "what the truth could be" in this commandment. The supreme irony in all this is that you ultimately agree with the sect called "Islam" that the quran is not clear in and of itself, one man cannot simply read it and understand what he must do to save his soul.
No i think one should be patient and makes sure he/she uses all their tools to understand rather then just read and act.
Insulting? this whole thread is an insult. Your condescending and "pseudo intellectual" tone is particularly annoying.
)I think it's annoying because you want to believe something of me that is not. It's annoying because i'm not coming out here calling you a kafir because you strongly disagree with me. Or maybe it's annoying that i'm trying to discuss peacefully and that just does not suit your understanding of me.
You act like you only want to"find the truth", but you use intellectually dishonest and deceptive arguments and tactics.
No i dont act like. I am genuine. I did not start this thread because of desire. God is aware of ALL thinkgs.
Just to ask where was my "intellectually dishonest and deceptive arguments and tactics"? as you put it because i am trying hard to be impartial and understand the scripture there must have been something for you to give such labels. So what is it??Regarding my use of "Kafir" it is simply an apt description of your approach, and I think it is obvious after 12 pages of this ridiculous "discussion".
Ok
You should be less concerned about your "feelings" and be more concerned with standing up for the truth.
Getting to the truth is what i am trying to do.
You can start by explaining to everyone why the conjunction "aw" denotes solely an "alternative option", when the dictionaries say otherwise, and the Quran uses it otherwise.
You could have just said this and that would have been it. We would have had a more peaceful discussion i think. I did not intend to ignore Simple. I just did not want to discuss with him as he seemd to have already have made his mind up. Also I just though that his point was made and that ultimately AW could mean or (as in denoting another option) whilst in someplaces it could be a clarifier so i thought ok. That's his interpretation and ended it there. I did not see it as a grammatical fact as you claim becuase his post did not say that it is.
I will explain what i think. please bear in mind that i am not an arabic speaker.
From what simple said to meHi Nima,
the "or" doesn't always mean "or" like in english, sometimes it can means "or rather" check a dictionary.
here are a couple of example for you to consider;
2200
So when ye have accomplished your holy rites, celebrate the praises of Allah, as ye used to celebrate the praises of your fathers,- yea, with far more Heart and soul. There are men who say "Our Lord! Give us (Thy bounties) in this world!" but they will have no portion in the Hereafter.where is the or above?
2182
But if anyone fears partiality or wrong-doing on the part of the testator, and makes peace between (The parties concerned), there is no wrong in him For Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.From what simple said i gathered that AW could have two different understandings. So i ask you one more time. Are there any places in Quran where Aw means "or" as in denoting another option? I don't how to check this out myself and i think that this is knowledge is something you'd automatically be aware of.
Also what becomes of these verses
424 Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess
And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O ye Believers! turn ye all together towards Allah, that ye may attain Bliss.
What becomes of the "or" used in the above??? Are they not conveying another option? is Aw not used?
I seriously think we got off on the wrong foot. I know you hate this view. But let's discuss it peacefully if not peacefully then leave the thread please also if you are willing to discuss please be open-minded on this topic.Peace
-
I won?t go through every single response you gave in your last post, since I isolated your comments and addressed them directly in my previous post, so you either will not or cannot understand what I?m saying. This is not personal, I don?t ?hate? you nor am I ?blinded by anger?. I disagree with you and I don?t express this disagreement in ambiguous terms, I don?t act like ?maybe this is true, maybe the opposite is true, who can really say??. You said it all in your last sentence ?keep an open mind? this is nothing but a euphemism for ?don?t tell me I?m wrong?. I?m sorry but I think you?re very wrong on this issue and all it takes is a cursory reading of scripture to see how incompatible your argument is with the quran; and frankly it?s intellectually dishonest to say that you want to see a specific verse saying you?re not allowed to do ?XYZ?. Regarding the deception in your arguments, well if you admit that ?aw? can mean an amplifying conjunction at 236 (or other places), then your whole argument crumbles. The burden of proof is no longer on people who believe sex outside of marriage is forbidden, as your previous posts would have us believe.
Do you know what I mean when I say the tenor of scripture? It means the common teachings, notions or themes about how we are to live our lives (including the satisfaction of our sexual desires) that are repeated over and over again in the quran.
If you believe that casual sex is compatible with how God tells us to live our lives in the quran then you will believe that ?aw? is denoting an alternative in 236. And while you can translate it in this way, it will simply turn scripture into inconsistent nonsense. Why are believers told to lower their gaze? Why dress modestly? Why is it important to guard your chastity? Why is it better to be chaste than to marry a ma malakat aymanukum in 425? Why should those who cannot afford marriage be ?content/satisfied? until God grants them from His bounty in 2433? All these clear commandments make absolutely no sense, if ?ma malakat aymanukum? refers to girlfriends or one night stands. By the way, it is exactly by this method that, for example, some Christians say that the quran promotes murder; that is by picking specific verses and ripping them out of context.Let me give you an example, if we take your understanding of ?aw? in 236 then we can have sex with our spouses, or those who our right hands possess. We have a choice according to you, yet we see that there is no other limitation given. That is to say, we can have sex with our spouses, or our ?ma malakat aymanukum? AND it is clearly NOT saying that if we have a spouse we cannot have sex with our ?ma malakat aymanukum?. So if someone were to commit adultery he could just say...?no you don?t understand, 236 says we can have sex with our spouses OR those who our right hands possess. And it?s only adultery if you have sex with someone who is not your ma malakat aymanukum?. Can you see where this is leading? It makes a mockery of sacred scripture.
You could have just said this and that would have been it. We would have had a more peaceful discussion i think. I did not intend to ignore Simple. I just did not want to discuss with him as he seemd to have already have made his mind up. Also I just though that his point was made and that ultimately AW could mean or (as in denoting another option) whilst in someplaces it could be a clarifier so i thought ok. That's his interpretation and ended it there. I did not see it as a grammatical fact as you claim becuase his post did not say that it is.
I don't think you understand the implication of what you're saying. He basically refuted the very premise of your argument very early on in the thread, the honest thing to do would be to concede the point. It's not a matter of "interpretation", it's about what makes sense within the context of the scripture. Your understanding leads to confusion, uncertainty and contradiction within the quran, therefore it cannot be correct. Once you were made aware of this fact, 10 pages ago, to obstinately continue the way you have is to consciously reject the command to take the best of the scripture. All we have to show after all this, is mindless speculation, nothing clear cut and straightforward. Using your "conclusions", we can't be sure (because MMA is an idiom) who is a lawful sexual partner and who is not. Is it my girlfriend? How long should we be going out before we can have sex lawfully? 6 months, 6 weeks? Can I end my relationship right after we have sex and get another "ma malakat aymanukum"? Can I have more than one at the same time? I don't think the scripture addresses these concerns. So we're left wandering around in darkness, all in the name of a book that purports to be clearly spelled out. Tell me how this makes sense? I sincerely hope you see what I'm saying here; follow the example of Abraham, he faithfully accepted what he believed to be God's commandments. We don't need to reinvent the wheel everytime we open up the scripture. Peace.
-
I won?t go through every single response you gave in your last post, since I isolated your comments and addressed them directly in my previous post
That's a good idea. It will help speed things up. I will try and do the same.
I disagree with you and I don?t express this disagreement in ambiguous terms,
Upon expressing you do not have to label people and be so strongly against the person who starts this thread. You can be strongly against the topic and object strongly. I am not making an unreasonable request.
No it's not. I said this before. All things are halal unless made haram in some way. Example 6 hours of playstation is transgression. But things like fahsha and transgression are subjective. Some may even think sex within marriage with the use of contraception is transgressive. What i'm saying is that transgression is subjective.
well if you admit that ?aw? can mean an amplifying conjunction at 236 (or other places), then your whole argument crumbles. The burden of proof is no longer on people who believe sex outside of marriage is forbidden, as your previous posts would have us believe.
That's what i said to Simple. I said if it is CLEAR that Aw in that place does not mean "or" for definate then yes my argument crumbles. I SAID THIS TO HIM MYSELF. The issue was that i did not think he proved this instead he prove that the word Aw COULD be used as an amplifying conjunction in that place. It is not a grammatical fact as you said. That slightly mislead me. Furthermore there are verses that clearly convey that MMA and spouse are not the same things.
Do you know what I mean when I say the tenor of scripture? It means the common teachings, notions or themes about how we are to live our lives (including the satisfaction of our sexual desires) that are repeated over and over again in the quran.
If you believe that casual sex is compatible with how God tells us to live our lives in the quran then you will believe that ?aw? is denoting an alternative in 236. And while you can translate it in this way, it will simply turn scripture into inconsistent nonsense. Why are believers told to lower their gaze? Why dress modestly? Why is it important to guard your chastity? Why is it better to be chaste than to marry a ma malakat aymanukum in 425? Why should those who cannot afford marriage be ?content/satisfied? until God grants them from His bounty in 2433? All these clear commandments make absolutely no sense, if ?ma malakat aymanukum? refers to girlfriends or one night stands. By the way, it is exactly by this method that, for example, some Christians say that the quran promotes murder; that is by picking specific verses and ripping them out of context.Thank you. Now we're talking Quran. But i've explained these things your asking. I can't keep replying the same things. Look back at my answers on this thread quote it and then tell me what's wrong with it. I'l answer somethings you've mentioned that are fairly new
About gaze. Of course we have to lower our gaze. To look at people when people don't want you to look at them. Or to think things about people when they don't want you to look at them....it's wrong. I had this in my mind before i followed the Quran. Someone who has sex with their finace is not a pervert. But someone who looks at other people or thinks about other people inappropriately is. The verse says lower your gaze and guard your private parts but the exception being Spouses and MMA.
I don't like the idea of casual sex. I think that with MMA we will converge on something where an MMA is someone your engaged with once we look more into the topic of MMA. But your approach is putting up unecessary barriers becuase you fear that sex with MMA = casual sex.
Let me give you an example, if we take your understanding of ?aw? in 236 then we can have sex with our spouses, or those who our right hands possess.
Not sure what you mean but. No that's not the case. Even if you have an MMA you can't go and sleep with another MMA because then that's like acting like there is no oath. Let alone marriage where the oath is supposedly more certain and stronger. The verse is basically saying that to two classes you can ungauard your parts to. MMA and Spouse. This does not mean you can have a spouse and an MMA. It is just explaining the categories in my opinion.
We have a choice according to you, yet we see that there is no other limitation given. That is to say, we can have sex with our spouses, or our ?ma malakat aymanukum? AND it is clearly NOT saying that if we have a spouse we cannot have sex with our ?ma malakat aymanukum?. So if someone were to commit adultery he could just say...?no you don?t understand, 236 says we can have sex with our spouses OR those who our right hands possess.
Consider what i've said above first. Now i'l expand on it a bit. It does not say but this cannot happen because this would be a clear transgression. A clear fahsha. A clear dishonesty and unfaithfulness when you consider oath. The Quran does not say don't play 6 hours of playstation. But it does say don't transgress. Do you see why i don't agree with your line of reasoning? Let me make it clear. The Quran does NOT say, don't rape your wives. One who raped his wife may claim that the Quran says i can have sex with my wife so i did even though she did not want to. This act is CLEARLY limited by certain verses of the Quran. Such as the ones in relation to violence, transgression, fahsha and so on. But still sex with spouse is permitted because there is a right way of doing it within the boundaries of the Quran. Thus You can't have a wife and an MMA because it's a clear contradiction to other things in the Quran as i said earlier. The oath in marriage alone or MMA is such that you commit to one another and be faithful. Thus the limitations on those with spouses or MMAs
And it?s only adultery if you have sex with someone who is not your ma malakat aymanukum?. Can you see where this is leading? It makes a mockery of sacred scripture.
I know where it LOOKS like it can go. But i think with careful consideration and look at the Quran this will not happen.
He basically refuted the very premise of your argument very early on in the thread, the honest thing to do would be to concede the point. It's not a matter of "interpretation", it's about what makes sense within the context of the scripture.
No. I would concede if it were reasonable. Look at the Quran. The MMA are clearly a category of their own and they are clearly not spouse. How am i trying to twist things in my favour here? Do you not agree that MMA are a category of their own that are seperate to Spouse?
Your understanding leads to confusion, uncertainty and contradiction within the quran, therefore it cannot be correct. Once you were made aware of this fact, 10 pages ago, to obstinately continue the way you have is to consciously reject the command to take the best of the scripture. All we have to show after all this, is mindless speculation, nothing clear cut and straightforward. Using your "conclusions", we can't be sure (because MMA is an idiom) who is a lawful sexual partner and who is not. Is it my girlfriend? How long should we be going out before we can have sex lawfully? 6 months, 6 weeks? Can I end my relationship right after we have sex and get another "ma malakat aymanukum"? Can I have more than one at the same time? I don't think the scripture addresses these concerns. So we're left wandering around in darkness, all in the name of a book that purports to be clearly spelled out. Tell me how this makes sense? I sincerely hope you see what I'm saying here; follow the example of Abraham, he faithfully accepted what he believed to be God's commandments. We don't need to reinvent the wheel everytime we open up the scripture. Peace.
It looks like it's confusion because it's not been approached from this angle before and it because there has been no proper look yet. MMA is in clear confusion right now. If we understand 235-6 as you have suggested this would still leave confusion in my opinion thus we can't in terms of the context of the Quran do this IMO. This approach may solve it. Surely the truth will be clear in a discussion. So let's keep minds open.
-
Obviously you have to "unguard" your private part before you "have sex" with your spouse. However, as long as you associate "unguard" with "have sex" there will be a big hole in your mind regarding "sex before/without marriage". And thus you will not be able to see or consider other conditions where "unguarding" is carried without "having sex".
analogy. your optical disc drive in your computer or dvd player.
"Unguard" open/eject (thus Guard means "close" or Guarded when the tray is "in"
The Private Part is really just the inner surface of the tray.
"Have sex" Putting a disc in (and out. and in. and out... you get the idea)
One day Mrs. Drive was in such an ill condition that she couldn't clean herself by herself.
She really needed cleaning.
Fortunately Mrs. Drive's MMA came in to her aid -- she was going to clean her Mistress.
She said, 'Ma'am, please Unguard, I need to clean your Private Part'.
Mrs. Drive Unguarded so her MMA could clean her Private Part.
She cleaned her Mistress without putting any disc in.
Then Mrs. Drive Guarded herself and climbed back to her bed. She was clean.
-
Peace Nima
Your argument is weak because of the interpretation of ?zina? having sex without lawful means would = zina thus the allowance of sex with mma with no rules is weak because where is the lawful means? There is none it?s an assumption.
Ask yourself WHY is it you can do nikkah with MMA and why is it you need permission from the ahl to do nikkah with mma? This is proof to me that they don?t automatically become halal for you to assume they are halal for sex.
Isn?t that enough proof to understand it? did you even read asad?s notes? Or is it too illogical because you?re beyond tradition?
About the verses 2433 and 425 I don?t know enough about these, we?re discussing with ignorance that?s kinda dangerous. Seriously but I really feel you?re stuck with the thought of gf/bf type of relationship in regards to mma
Read the later part of 2433
?And do not, in order to gain some of the fleeting pleasures of this worldly life, coerce your maidens into whoredom if they happen to be desirous of marriage; and if anyone should coerce them, then, verily, after they have been compelled , God will be much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace!?
What do you understand of this?
Read the later part of 425
Marry them, then, with their people's(ahl/ahlihinna) leave, and give them their dowers in an equitable manner - they being women who give themselves in honest wedlock, not in fornication, nor as secret love-companions. And when they are married, and thereafter become guilty of immoral conduct, they shall be liable to half the penalty to which free married women are liable. This to those of you who fear lest they stumble into evil. But it is for your own good to persevere in patience and God is much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace.
What do you understand of this? I?ve highlighted parts specifically for focus. Tell me how you understand this as gf/bf relation or something alike to that.
Ambiguity would occure in verses like 235-6 and 2431. In 2431 relaxing of the dress code is mentioned in front of those specified. In 235-6 the private parts are allowed to be unguarded. What could the private parts being unguarded mean? Is it only a matter of exposure or somthing more? Remember MMA are mentioned alongside spouses here so in someways surely MMA must bear some relation to a spouse right?
This is an assumption. maybe we should question the idea of ?azwaj? and who fits that category. Remember mma have ahl people that care for them. There indicates some sort of protection for mma and weakness on their part.
So if mma are under your protection they?re like your family.. in your care then it would be normal for frj to be unguarded to azwaj and mma.
And again to un-guard does not mean to have sex with.
Salam.
-
Obviously you have to "unguard" your private part before you "have sex" with your spouse. However, as long as you associate "unguard" with "have sex" there will be a big hole in your mind regarding "sex before/without marriage". And thus you will not be able to see or consider other conditions where "unguarding" is carried without "having sex".
analogy. your optical disc drive in your computer or dvd player.
"Unguard" open/eject (thus Guard means "close" or Guarded when the tray is "in"
The Private Part is really just the inner surface of the tray.
"Have sex" Putting a disc in (and out. and in. and out... you get the idea)
One day Mrs. Drive was in such an ill condition that she couldn't clean herself by herself.
She really needed cleaning.
Fortunately Mrs. Drive's MMA came in to her aid -- she was going to clean her Mistress.
She said, 'Ma'am, please Unguard, I need to clean your Private Part'.
Mrs. Drive Unguarded so her MMA could clean her Private Part.
She cleaned her Mistress without putting any disc in.
Then Mrs. Drive Guarded herself and climbed back to her bed. She was clean.
I understand what you mean. It is similar to Sarah's argument. I am not saying that to unguard=to have sex. What I'm saying is that to ungaurd is to literally mean to ungaurd to others not expose but ungaurd which implies beyond exposure right? Now this is where we differ in understanding. Whilst here your understanding appears to be that the ungaurd has to be limited. Thus sex is part of that limitation you place, my argument is from WHERE did you get this limitation? It would be like me saying that you can't have sex with your spouse simply because ungaurd does not equal sex. Yes it does not equal sex but UNLESS restricted by some other verse, sex is within the unguarding of one's private parts. Do you get my line of reasoning? Do you know of a verse in the Quran that says something on the lines of "do not have sex with MMA" because only this kind of thing will effect 235-6 and only this will bring in limitations to what unguarding means. We can't put limitations of our own. Thus we can't automatically assume and limit sex to marriages and then attribute this law to the Quran.
If you however argue that any kind of sex (even in a non-controversial loving relationship) outside of marriage falls under fahasha (in which you have taken a subjective understanding on what is a fahasha where we all have to have a subjective understanding of things such as transgression) then your argument stands. The only way i could object to this would be to argue that sex in a loving relationship that does not have marriage status cannot be fahsha and you can argue otherwise because we would have different understandings of fahasha and thus part ways in our understandings.
But your analogy is in my opnion not an argument that can stand. As you need to explain from where you are getting these limitations from.
-
Salam Sarah
Read the whole of this post please ( & sorry for saying this just a precaution. It's kind of long reply but explains alot)
Your argument is weak because of the interpretation of ?zina? having sex without lawful means would = zina thus the allowance of sex with mma with no rules is weak because where is the lawful means? There is none it?s an assumption.
But how is it not lawful? By lawful do you understand that one has to have documents and signed contracts? When it is not made unlawful, it is lawful. There is no middle ground on this. Think about this. Let me try and explain this way.
Your starting point HAS to be that nothing in Quran is unlawful unless it says so or implies so clearly. If you don't take this approach then you could just place your own restrictions that the Quran has not placed and then claim that it is from the Quran.
I could claim that 6 hours of watching tv is unlawful but i have not the right in saying this unless it is made clear via a verse such as tv must be kept within 6 hours. There is no such verse similar to sex. However i can claim that 6 hours of tv is transgression and i would be making Quranic reference. However that is then my opnionSo whilst 6 hours is a transgression in my eyes and thus unlawful to me, for another it may not be. Circumstances, situation all effect whether it is a transgression or not. But i cannot come out and claim that TV is exclusive to within 6 hours.If you see any weakness in that let me know and help so that i may be able to understand you better or maybe explain myself better to you.
Look at my reply to San for more details.Ask yourself WHY is it you can do nikkah with MMA and why is it you need permission from the ahl to do nikkah with mma? This is proof to me that they don?t automatically become halal for you to assume they are halal for sex.
I have done and i explained in my last post that you don't need permission from ahl to do nikah with MMA. You need permission from ahl only if your MMA is a fatayat. But if your MMA is a muhsinat then you do not need permission. These are implicative proofs that MMA is someone whom you have a relationship with. Bear in mind that you cannot marry muhsinat unless they become your MMA first. Let me ask you similar to the way you have asked me why do you end up marrying your girlfriends? Is it not clear?
Isn?t that enough proof to understand it? did you even read asad?s notes? Or is it too illogical because you?re beyond tradition?
I have not read asad's notes. I am not sure what you mean by beyond tradition. But i believe i am not being unreasonable in what i'm saying nor am I letting what could be a cultural thing, distort getting to the truth. This is not about being modern. Tradition or modernness does't effect reason. Some traditions are nice to keep but they are not laws of God unless implied otherwise and some are just plain wrong and can be made clear via Quran.
About the verses 2433 and 425 I don?t know enough about these, we?re discussing with ignorance that?s kinda dangerous. Seriously but I really feel you?re stuck with the thought of gf/bf type of relationship in regards to mma
In this one case, i'm not discussing with ignorance. I am not stuck with that thought. It seems to be the one that best fits the context at the moment. If there is a better suggestion, i am pretty sure i will change my mind.
Look at my reply to Zubairus and then tell me what MMA could mean to you also fill in any gaps if you see any
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.Ok you then said
Read the later part of 2433
?And do not, in order to gain some of the fleeting pleasures of this worldly life, coerce your maidens into whoredom if they happen to be desirous of marriage; and if anyone should coerce them, then, verily, after they have been compelled , God will be much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace!?
What do you understand of this?
Firstly it is not desirous of marriage. I think (from what i checked) It is tahason which is Ha-sad-nun the same root used for muhsinat. I take Ha-sad-nun to mean something like chaste at the moment.
Secondly it is not maidens(maidens mean slave girls right?), it is fatayat.
Finally the terms translated to whordom is bigha which is
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 soughtThe ones in bold are the things i think are most likely to apply here. I don't think it says don't force your dependent daughters into relationship with others or marriage as clearly bigha (when looking at the root) does not represent that.
Thus this could mean don't force your dependent daughters to prostitution or to sleep with others just so you can gain money (which is pretty much prostitution but in a less direct way. You know like cons and things like that)
Note that Ha-sad-nun is used here in comparison to bigha and as Ha-sad-nun is not virginity as explained earlier in the thread, the understanding of bigha being something like prostituation becomes a stronger understanding IMO.Read the later part of 425
Marry them, then, with their people's(ahl/ahlihinna) leave, and give them their dowers in an equitable manner - they being women who give themselves in honest wedlock, not in fornication, nor as secret love-companions. And when they are married, and thereafter become guilty of immoral conduct, they shall be liable to half the penalty to which free married women are liable. This to those of you who fear lest they stumble into evil. But it is for your own good to persevere in patience and God is much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace.
What do you understand of this? I?ve highlighted parts specifically for focus. Tell me how you understand this as gf/bf relation or something alike to that.
Ok but first i'll quote the verse using a free-minds translation in which i'l attempt to replace important words with their arabic but note that i am not an arabic speaker so i could have the order of the words wrong which could make a huge difference and thus i'd appreciate if more if skilled arabic speakers clarify and correct me
425 And whoever of you have not the means to marry the muhsinat, then from your MMA of the fatayat. And God is more aware of your faith, some of you to each other. You shall marry them with the permission of their parents and give them their dowries in kindness; to be Ha-sad-nun, not for illicit sex or taking lovers. When they become independent, then any of them who come with lewdness shall have half of what is the punishment for those independent. This is for those who are concerned about deviating from among you. But if you are patient it is better for you, and God is Forgiver, Merciful.
If you can't marry the muhsinat, then marry the fatayat who are your MMA. So this means that the fatayat must first be your MMA. Same with muhsinat. It says don't marry just for sex conveying that you marry to become Ha-sad-nun. Which could be independent, chaste or something else.
If you need me to expand on this let me know and i'll try and explain better and more detailed.So if mma are under your protection they?re like your family.. in your care then it would be normal for frj to be unguarded to azwaj and mma.
No WAY! Unguard is not the same as relaxing a dress code. A father is a family member but still you can't unguard your private part to them. You may be able to expose...I don't know but you certainly cannot unguard. Why? because of 235-6 which clearly says this.
And again to un-guard does not mean to have sex with.
Agreed
Peace
-
Peace nimnimak,
Peace Zubairus
Sorry about the lateish reply. Got a bit distracted.
Oath on it's own is something i can't say in terms of Quran because i'm not sure. I know it's something very important to MMA but i was hoping first to round up all arguments against the act of sex with MMA or arguments for MMA being someting like a slave and then move onto the part of oath which is a very important part as this i think will determine much in terms of boundries and so on. It may even bring a completely different understanding to what an MMA is. But nevertheless i am still trying to conclude that sex with MMA is permissible based on what i have argued so far.
With respect to 3350
Not necessarily girlfriends. It could be like a fiance or something less. But i would think that it's on the lines of something which leads up to a marriage.
I can only think of relationships that do this. So i would think that it has to fall in the circle of a relationship. But the prophet's time was 1400 years ago i'm not sure how engagement and things like that would have worked back then.Among the requirement for a successful discussion is defination of term. This I believe is missing in this thread, hence the prolong discussion.
Yes, I appreciate your calmness, a sign of maturity in discussion but you need to get your terms clearly first as a premises of discussion.
So, I will be waiting, looking forward to hearing from you your precise understanding of oath, MMA,among other key terms that are fundermental to the success of this discussion.
To you all, a discussion like this just like others of its type is important but more important is our sincere intention to embrace islam holistically, thereby living or striving to live a just life in our public and private eandeavour.
Note there are two communities in the world. viz the jahiliha and the righteous community. The jahiliya community is real having practical existence not existence at the level of internet discussion. So the community of the righteous. See the community of Ibrahim,muhamad among other models of ours.
As people that have decided to live a pursposeful life in the same house with the rebels against our creator, our challenge is to exist as a community in the real sense of community evolve for mankind.
If this look like a distraction. I am sorry. But THINK ABOUT IT.
ZUBAIRUS
-
Among the requirement for a successful discussion is defination of term. This I believe is missing in this thread, hence the prolong discussion.
Yes, I appreciate your calmness, a sign of maturity in discussion but you need to get your terms clearly first as a premises of discussion.
So, I will be waiting, looking forward to hearing from you your precise understanding of oath, MMA,among other key terms that are fundermental to the success of this discussion.
To you all, a discussion like this just like others of its type is important but more important is our sincere intention to embrace islam holistically, thereby living or striving to live a just life in our public and private eandeavour.
Note there are two communities in the world. viz the jahiliha and the righteous community. The jahiliya community is real having practical existence not existence at the level of internet discussion. So the community of the righteous. See the community of Ibrahim,muhamad among other models of ours.
As people that have decided to live a pursposeful life in the same house with the rebels against our creator, our challenge is to exist as a community in the real sense of community evolve for mankind.
If this look like a distraction. I am sorry. But THINK ABOUT IT.
ZUBAIRUS
Peace Zubairus
I have an exam tomorow but after tomorow I will look at oaths in as much detail as I am capable of and respond in this thread.
Till then i've been trying to makes sure i have not missed anything obvious or something beyond what i can recognise in terms of arabic even with the use of the tools provided on the internet. -
But Nima how is lawful?
If you can't marry the muhsinat, then marry the fatayat who are your MMA. So this means that the fatayat must first be your MMA. Same with muhsinat. It says don't marry just for sex conveying that you marry to become Ha-sad-nun. Which could be independent, chaste or something else.
If you need me to expand on this let me know and i'll try and explain better and more detailed.I disagree with you. Explain it better if you can.
Notice the verse is about nikkah?
The fatayat aren?t your mma. You?re seeking to marry an mma, otherwise you'll be asking yourself for permission to do nikkah with her (which makes no sense). and as for the caretakers of mma who wish to marry an mma they can't coerce them to nikkah 2433
What do you understand of the term ?muhsinat? muhsinat and mma are different things.
Salam
-
Peace,
hope you're doing well with your exam
I understand what you mean. It is similar to Sarah's argument. I am not saying that to unguard=to have sex. What I'm saying is that to ungaurd is to literally mean to ungaurd to others not expose but ungaurd which implies beyond exposure right? Now this is where we differ in understanding. Whilst here your understanding appears to be that the ungaurd has to be limited. Thus sex is part of that limitation you place, my argument is from WHERE did you get this limitation? It would be like me saying that you can't have sex with your spouse simply because ungaurd does not equal sex. Yes it does not equal sex but UNLESS restricted by some other verse, sex is within the unguarding of one's private parts. Do you get my line of reasoning? Do you know of a verse in the Quran that says something on the lines of "do not have sex with MMA" because only this kind of thing will effect 235-6 and only this will bring in limitations to what unguarding means. We can't put limitations of our own. Thus we can't automatically assume and limit sex to marriages and then attribute this law to the Quran.
I did not put the limit. I'm just trying to say that with such understanding, there are such and such possibilities. You can have your MMA without sexual relationship, i.e. sex is not necessarily the sole purpose of MMA, IF indeed one has the right. Just like sex is not the sole purpose of a marriage. On the other hand, you are the one who seems to try to isolate the issue of "sex with MMA" (CMIIW). As one of the moderator have suggested about the hikma side of AQ, we need to try our best to link our best understanding of the many relevant AQ verses and to make a whole understanding out of it. For example, reading 2187, which as i understand it, does talk about sex, it says
It has been made permissible for you the night preceding fasting to go to your women (nisaa'. They are clothing for you and you are clothing for them. Allah knows that you used to deceive yourselves, so He accepted your repentance and forgave you. So now, have relations with them and seek that which Allah has decreed for you.
note "women", not "wives/spouses/azwaaj". looks like it supports your arguments, right? let's read on.
Reading 43, the same word "women" are related with "nikah". 423-24 explains which of the women one man can marry and which he cannot. 242-3 give strong warnings against fornication/zina. And then goes on with related ethical issues until we come to 2430-31, which links "reducing/holding back sight" (visual) with "protecting private parts" and with a set of recommendations regarding physical "exposure" and "disclosure" and a certain attitude. Then right after those issues, we are presented with 'marry the unmarried among...' in 2432, an issue of "marriage/wedlock". 2433 further suggested for those who aren't able to marry/wed to hold on/abstain. Let's take the middle part of 2433 in detail, because it's very interesting and very crucial for/against your argumentation
wallatheena yabtaghoona al"kitaba" mim ma malakat aymanukum
- fakatiboohum inAAalimtum feehim khayran
wa atoohum min mali Allahi allathee atakum
And those who seek a "contract" from your MMA
- then make a contract with them if you know there is within them goodness
and give them from the wealth of Allah which He has given you.
What "contract/writing/kitab"?
Even more interesting, however, (someone might/should have already pointed it before) the interaction here is between<they/those who seek a "contract"> -- <you> -- <your MMA>
CHECK ALL THE TRANSLATIONS, including mine and yours
IF you were to have sexual relationship with your MMA (unmarried), then what boundaries that would limit you from marrying her to "those who seek a contract"? (issue time from last sexual intercourse with you, the protector, to the next intercourse with another man) Remember you can't divorce your MMA as you have not married her (assuming it's a she), so she doesn't have whatever protection a legal wife has in AQ.
Does it make any sense with your conception of MMA? To, forgive me, "pass him/her on" to someone else to be contracted/booked/married?
to note, the word "kitab" is also mentioned in 424, please carefully take the context of the whole sura and we get back to the expression "marry/nikah from the women/nisaa'" in sura 4. This is if you want to keep reading AQ as a whole. Otherwise you can always demand the question 'where does it say in AQ that ...'.
Remember the beginning part of 2433
But let them who find not marriage abstain until Allah enriches them from His bounty.
Yes, the sura previously talked about "fornication/zina", "reducing/holding back sight", "protecting private parts", physical "exposure" and "disclosure", and 'marry the unmarried'.
Yes, it talks about abstaining from sexual relationship, if it wasn't clear enough to you.
And as a reminder, you haven't answered these earlier questions from me & other members
- what is exactly the oath that binds your relationship with your MMA?
- how binding is the oath (i.e. conditions etc)?
- what makes the oath different to that of "marriage"?
(which in turn may require some explanation of what constitutes marriage/nikah -- at least as a precedence -- otherwise, we (different minds with different concepts) may confuse the meaning of "oath" to that of "marriage" while keep using both terms in confusion, especially as some have argued that marriage is not about administrative/legal documents at all.
IF you have the rights to have sexual relationship with your MMA, then
-
what is the rights of the MMA?
-
what are the boundaries regarding sexual relationship with your MMA?
-
in addition, as previously you told us that you worry about starting such a relationship for fear of ending it -- how does one end a relationship with his/her MMA?
You see, i'm not even asking about what consequences one is going to face by having a sexual relationship with an MMA (or anyone for that matter) out of marriage, but if you think it's going to work, then tell me how exactly it's going to work -- in line with AQ, of course. context our current time.
- fakatiboohum inAAalimtum feehim khayran
-
peace
Remember you can't divorce your MMA as you have not married her (assuming it's a she), so she doesn't have whatever protection a legal wife has in AQ.
I think you can devorce them as you are married to them, the Oath you take is/are your marriage vows.
you don't take oaths with women you don't want to be responsible for surely!
do you know of any people where they take oaths of responsibility, honestly, where they don't want to be responsible for them?
peace