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

liquiddharma

If you're an archaeologist digging up ancient statues, and one of them has writing on the bottom saying "I ordered this statue made for the temple gardens. I am the King" - does that help you date the statue? No, of course not. It could be any one of dozens of kings. It was obvious to the people at the time - they knew who their king was. He was omnipresent. He had great powers over their lives. But now all it forgotten, it is very difficult to tell which king built which building if they didn't put their name on it.

Likewise we cannot tell now what these terms meant - it was obvious what "those your right hands protect" meant at the time, but now we can't tell. We don't know what the life situation was, we can't judge the parameters. If it was important, if God wanted us to worry about it, he would have surely made it clear. If it isn't clear then we aren't meant to worry about it

003007

He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book In it are
verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the
foundation of the Book others are allegorical. But those in whose
hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical,
seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one
knows its hidden meanings except Allah.

nimnimak_11

If you're an archaeologist digging up ancient statues, and one of them has writing on the bottom saying "I ordered this statue made for the temple gardens. I am the King" - does that help you date the statue? No, of course not. It could be any one of dozens of kings. It was obvious to the people at the time - they knew who their king was. He was omnipresent. He had great powers over their lives. But now all it forgotten, it is very difficult to tell which king built which building if they didn't put their name on it.

Likewise we cannot tell now what these terms meant - it was obvious what "those your right hands protect" meant at the time, but now we can't tell. We don't know what the life situation was, we can't judge the parameters. If it was important, if God wanted us to worry about it, he would have surely made it clear. If it isn't clear then we aren't meant to worry about it

What we see as clarity is subjective. It is clear that sex with MMA is not prohibited. From this it follows that it's permitted. MMA may be something that was only exclusive to the past but it may also not be. What is clear though is the allowance of sex with the MMA. If this is not a reference to the past and i have reason to believe that it is not, then with all the relationships today, i cannot see anything fitting better then a fiance.

AlFajr

Salaam Nimnimak
It was a mistake of mine to say MMA probably means slave. It is irrelevant to the discussion in this thread. So getting back on topic How sex before Marriage is not haram (prohibited) according to the Quran, I am going to argue why MMA most likely does not mean boyfriend/girlfriend.

My words in (Brown).

Salam Aalmakto

I can't believe I missed this post! I'm sorry for not addressing this post. I was unaware that it existed (No Problem). I did do the research and it took a long time. With no disrespect intended, your 5 mins of research was not enough. (This time I spent a lot longer) The majority of the verses you have quoted have been discussed before (I've gone back through the thread and tried to gather your arguments. Sorry if I missed any). I'l put an astrix next to those we have already discussed so that if you want to go back to thread and look at them in more detail you'll know whether it's there or not.

425* You've misunderstood the verse. It is not married MMA women. It is married fatayat women. The fatayat get half the punishment of muhsinat. This has nothing to do with being an MMA. Check the verse. I'l expand on it more if you want but this has been pointed out by Sarah before and we discussed it then.

Verses 423-425
Ok I went through the past few pages on this thread in regards to 423-425. Are these statements what you believe?
a) The verses set the prohibitions on whom we are allowed to marry.
b) Muhsinat women cannot be married unless they are your MMA.
c) You said "Thus i believe that you cannot marry anyone unless they are first your MMA as no other class would be left for marriage."
d) The fatayat get half the punishment of muhsinat.

Than what do you think of the following part of that verse

424 - ...and permitted for you is what is beyond this, if you are seeking with your money to be independent, not for musafiheena...

What class would "what is beyond this" be? if as you put it, "no other class would be left for marriage".

425 - And whoever of you cannot afford to marry almuhsanati, then from those ma malakat aymanukum of fatayatikum almu_minati...

Why is MMA brought up in only 1 part of this verse in regards to fatayat but not almuhsanati? You said "This has nothing to do with being an MMA". Why is it being brought up at all other than to specify a subset of the fatayat? If MMA is "implied" in front of almuhsanati as you claim, then the verse would imply that believers have many "Girlfriends/boyfriends" to pick and choose from. i.e.
425 - And whoever of you cannot afford to marry those Girlfriends from almuhsanati, then from those girlfriends of fatayatikum almu_minati...

Continuing on with 425
425 - ...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 independent, not for masafihatin sex or taking akhdanin.

What does masafihatin mean to you?
Once again masafiheena is mentioned. Do you think it means illicit sex?
What does akhdanin mean to you?
If masafihatin means illicit sex than what does akhdanin mean? Lovers? Boyfriend/Girlfriend?
If marriage was not a requirement for sex, then why does the Quran warn people not to use marriage as a "cover" for sexual relations.

Verse 43
43* Again this has been discussed. It does not say or imply what your understanding it to be. To make this clearer, look at the classes we are allowed to marry in sura 423-25 and your defenition of normal will have some problems. First look at my reply to you on 423-25 then chek it out for yourself.

I looked back into the thread and this is the translation you used.
Your translation of 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 {MMA} . This is best that you do not face financial hardship.

You said in a previous post that in this situation MMA can mean
a) Nanny or caretaker
b) Girlfriend/Boyfriend
c) Slave

How is marrying only 1 orphan equal in fairness and financial terms to marrying a Nanny, Girlfriend etc.? Your understanding of MMA does not make sense in this context.

Furthermore, didn't you say that you cannot marry anyone unless they were first your MMA? This contradicts what this verse says in regards to marrying orphans, as it seems you can marry them even though they are not your MMA.

423-25* Not sure what you mean. Which part you want me to discuss? An important point from this is that the muhsinat women cannot be married unless they are your MMA. I think this is the same with fatayat. Thus i believe that you cannot marry anyone unless they are first your MMA as no other class would be left for marriage. Already discussed this verse if you want more details on it in the thread.

I discussed this earlier in this post.

Verse 1671
1671 How? I see it in support of it being a relationship. The verse implies that it is better to share to become equal in it. That is how i see it.

1671 And God has preferred some of you over others in provision. So it is not for those who have been preferred to relinquish their provision to those who are maintained by their oaths, that they may become equal in it. Would they deny the favor of God?

The verse says that it is not (Arabic Fama) for those who have provisions to relinquish to those who are maintained by their oaths {MMA}, that they may become equal in it.

So the verse does not encourage sharing, but encourages people to be grateful (see "Would they deny the favor of God?&quot and acknowledge what God has given them. Opposite to what you said, the verse is saying that people would not relinquish their provisions to their MMA so that they are equal in it.

Verse 2433
2433* The verse is not as it appears. Check a literal translation. My understanding is If the MMA request marriage and you find them to be ready, then accept.

Allow me to breakdown the verse as I cannot find a "literal" translation that you would agree with.

The previous verse (2432) talks about marrying off people who are single (Even if they are poor)
2432 And marry off those among you that are single, and the good from among your male and female servants. If they are poor, then God will grant them from His grace. And God is Encompassing, Knowledgeable.
The verse in question (2433) encourages people who cannot "find" marriage to abstain (see 46 for another instance of the word abstain/ista'affa being used) until God enriches them. Abstain/ista'affa from what? What must they abstain from until they are married?
http//www.studyquran.co.uk/2_AYN.htm

Ayn-Fa-Fa = to abstain from what is unlawful, be abstinent, restrain.

Other occurrences
ista'affa vb. (10)
3rd. m. sing. impf. act. 46, 2433, f. pl. acc. 2460

The verse continues to talk about documenting Al-Kitab with the MMA if they seek it and are known to be "Good". Obviously, this part of the verse is what caused you to interpret "If the Girlfriend/Boyfriend request marriage and you find them to be ready, then accept".
It says not to compel your Fatyatikum to ?unchasteness?.
Examples of the word unchasteness being used are located in 1920, 1928, 2433
It says God is merciful and forgiving after their compulsion.

So what you're saying is that in the middle of

encouraging people to get married and to abstain until marriage (see points 1 and 2) and forbidding people from forcing their Fatyat into ?unchasteness? (see point 4)
we are instructed to marry our Boyfriends/Girlfriends (whom we are already having sex with) if they ask for it?

That interpretation does not fit very well within the passages.

Verse 2458
2458 I don't know. It is for certain that the MMA cannot mean anything that relates to children but i'm not sure why MMA are addressed here.

2458 O you who believe, let those who are maintained by your oaths, and those who have not yet attained puberty, request your permission regarding three times before the dawn Salat, and when you put off your attire from the noon time, and after the evening Salat. These are three private times for you. Other than these times, it is not wrong for you or them to intermingle with one another. God thus clarifies the revelations for you. And God is Knowledgeable, Wise.

Why would your Boyfriend/Girlfriend and Children who have not attained puberty be the only two category of people who need to ask permission during your "private times".

Verses 3013-3032
3028 I see this in support of a relationship. Is it not implying that it would foolish to fear the MMA as you fear each other (by each other i take people whom you don't well enough or strangers)

Ok lets look at the context. Leading up to 3028 is...
3013 - Warns those who set up partners that they will reject them on Judgement Day.
verses 3017 all the way to 3027 extol the Glory and Power of God.
The verse in question (302 is
3028 An example is put forth for you from among yourselves are there any from among those who are maintained by your oaths that are partners to you in what provisions We have given you that you become equal therein? Would you fear them as you fear each other? It is such that We clarify the revelations for a people who have sense.

Similar to 1671 I propose that these are rhetorical questions being asked. The answer to 3028 being "No" there are no MMA who are partners in provision such that they are equal. And that you would not fear MMA as you fear your peers.
This can be seen from the context.
The following verses 3031 and 3032 Warn against Polytheism and ascribing partners.
So 3028 sets MMA at a lower level not to be feared because they do not share in the provisions as an equal i.e. Analogy to God being all-powerful and not sharing it with any "partners".

Why would it be talking about sharing with your Girlfriend/boyfriend in such a context?

Verses 3350-3355
3350-55*
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.

I want you to look at
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, as granted to you by God;

and

...We have already decreed their rights in regard to their spouses and those who are maintained by their oaths...

and

3352 ...except what is maintained by your oath...

MMA appears a number of times in these passages. Since you're proposing the new theory, the burden of proof is on you to ensure it fits with every single verse in the Quran. So I was wondering how you would translate these verses.

Response to your closing arguments
The only verse which i see as a problem to MMA meaning something like a girlfriend is 2228.
Again you must show your theory true for every single verse. Even a single inconsistancy will nullify your argument. I have pointed out problems with all the verses you have addressed.
But this problem is much less then the problem we face if we were to give MMA any other meaning other then something like a girlfriend. All other meanings would either cause clear contradictions or be less convincing then the MMA being a girfirend of some sort.
I ask of anyone to think and to provide other possibilites as to what MMA could mean and i'm pretty sure i can prove that it is much less convincing then understanding that MMA is something like a girlfriend when looking at all the relevant verses. I have already thought about other possibilities, there are none.

I am not sure if you're deliberately trying to force a choice through presenting a False Dilemma. Despite what you may think, I don't think you have thought of all possible theories because as long as your theory is unsound, than there definitely can be another meaning.

You have yet to providing a sound argument that MMA means Fianc?/Boyfriend/Girlfriend etc.

liquiddharma

What we see as clarity is subjective. It is clear that sex with MMA is not prohibited. From this it follows that it's permitted. MMA may be something that was only exclusive to the past but it may also not be. What is clear though is the allowance of sex with the MMA. If this is not a reference to the past and i have reason to believe that it is not, then with all the relationships today, i cannot see anything fitting better then a fiance.

The concept of sex being "permissible" with a fianc? defeats the object of actually getting marriage. Thus it contradicts natural reason. Sure it's not as morally disastrous as sexual slavery, but I'd rather class all these verses as esoteric/allegorical than fall into a guessed meaning which contradicts natural reason.

nimnimak_11

Salam Aalmakto

I have had a very busy week. I knew this would take a while to reply to so this is why this is a late reply. That which is in green are my answers.

Verses 423-425
Ok I went through the past few pages on this thread in regards to 423-425. Are these statements what you believe?
a) The verses set the prohibitions on whom we are allowed to marry.
b) Muhsinat women cannot be married unless they are your MMA.
c) You said "Thus i believe that you cannot marry anyone unless they are first your MMA as no other class would be left for marriage."
d) The fatayat get half the punishment of muhsinat.
Yes to all the above.

Than what do you think of the following part of that verse

424 - ...and permitted for you is what is beyond this, if you are seeking with your money to be independent, not for musafiheena...

What class would "what is beyond this" be? if as you put it, "no other class would be left for marriage".
424 does not mention the fatayat. Thus by what is meant beyond this, is the fatayat which is mentioned in other places in the Quran

425 - And whoever of you cannot afford to marry almuhsanati, then from those ma malakat aymanukum of fatayatikum almu_minati...

Why is MMA brought up in only 1 part of this verse in regards to fatayat but not almuhsanati? To my understanding the fact that this is done conveys that before marrying a fatayat, they must first be MMA. This is the same with the muhsinat. They are forbidden to us until they become our MMA. The difference is the way it is said. I cannot draw any other meanings or implications. You said "This has nothing to do with being an MMA". Why is it being brought up at all other than to specify a subset of the fatayat? If MMA is "implied" in front of almuhsanati as you claim, then the verse would imply that believers have many "Girlfriends/boyfriends" to pick and choose from. i.e.
425 - And whoever of you cannot afford to marry those Girlfriends from almuhsanati, then from those girlfriends of fatayatikum almu_minati.
Good point.

Continuing on with 425
425 - ...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 independent, not for masafihatin sex or taking akhdanin.

What does masafihatin mean to you? The word sex does not occur after masafihatin. Judging by the root of the word, I agree with it meaning illicit sex or unlawful sex.
Once again masafiheena is mentioned. Do you think it means illicit sex? Yes
What does akhdanin mean to you? Secret or private association
If masafihatin means illicit sex than what does akhdanin mean? Lovers? Boyfriend/Girlfriend? No. Keep in mind that the verse is addressing what one?s minimum goal or purpose in marriage is and not one?s purpose with an MMA should be. My take on this part of 425 is Marry for the sake of becoming obtaining tahason not for obtaining sex or acting as secret lovers. A marriage is not a secret love relationship nor is it just for sex. That is what i understand of that part of 425
If marriage was not a requirement for sex, then why does the Quran warn people not to use marriage as a "cover" for sexual relations. See my answer to your last question. If that does not answer it ask me again please.

Verse 43
43* Again this has been discussed. It does not say or imply what your understanding it to be. To make this clearer, look at the classes we are allowed to marry in sura 423-25 and your defenition of normal will have some problems. First look at my reply to you on 423-25 then chek it out for yourself.

I looked back into the thread and this is the translation you used.
Your translation of 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 {MMA} . This is best that you do not face financial hardship.

You said in a previous post that in this situation MMA can mean
a) Nanny or caretaker
b) Girlfriend/Boyfriend
c) Slave

How is marrying only 1 orphan equal in fairness and financial terms to marrying a Nanny, Girlfriend etc. The verse implies that should you choose to marry if you are unjust to the orphan (not looking after it properly. Lack of time etc.), Marriage can be costly and should you choose to marry more than 1 for the sake of the orphans, then a)you may not be able to be fair to all the women you marry b) you may not be able to afford it.
So if you can?t handle the cost then marry only one or get an MMA which is not costly like marriage. But bear in mind the similarities of an MMA to a spouse. Not just from this verse but from other verses.

Furthermore, didn't you say that you cannot marry anyone unless they were first your MMA? This contradicts what this verse says in regards to marrying orphans, as it seems you can marry them even though they are not your MMA. No there is no contradiction IMO because in order marry these women in 43, they must still first become your MMA. When the verse says marry them, verses which relate to marriage must be all taken into account. From which verses relating to first becoming an MMA must also be taken into account.

423-25* Not sure what you mean. Which part you want me to discuss? An important point from this is that the muhsinat women cannot be married unless they are your MMA. I think this is the same with fatayat. Thus i believe that you cannot marry anyone unless they are first your MMA as no other class would be left for marriage. Already discussed this verse if you want more details on it in the thread.

I discussed this earlier in this post.
I have answered your earlier post

Verse 1671
1671 How? I see it in support of it being a relationship. The verse implies that it is better to share to become equal in it. That is how i see it.

1671 And God has preferred some of you over others in provision. So it is not for those who have been preferred to relinquish their provision to those who are maintained by their oaths, that they may become equal in it. Would they deny the favor of God?

The verse says that it is not (Arabic Fama) for those who have provisions to relinquish to those who are maintained by their oaths {MMA}, that they may become equal in it.

So the verse does not encourage sharing, but encourages people to be grateful (see "Would they deny the favor of God?&quot and acknowledge what God has given them. Opposite to what you said, the verse is saying that people would not relinquish their provisions to their MMA so that they are equal in it.

Ok I am unsure of this. The final part of this verse is like a question. It asks would they deny the favour of God? What is meant by this in your opinion?

Verse 2433
2433* The verse is not as it appears. Check a literal translation. My understanding is If the MMA request marriage and you find them to be ready, then accept.

Allow me to breakdown the verse as I cannot find a "literal" translation that you would agree with.

The previous verse (2432) talks about marrying off people who are single (Even if they are poor)
2432 And marry off those among you that are single, and the good from among your male and female servants. If they are poor, then God will grant them from His grace. And God is Encompassing, Knowledgeable.
The verse in question (2433) encourages people who cannot "find" marriage to abstain (see 46 for another instance of the word abstain/ista'affa being used) until God enriches them. Abstain/ista'affa from what? What must they abstain from until they are married?
http//www.studyquran.co.uk/2_AYN.htm
Think about this. It says those don?t have the means for marriage should abstain now let?s consider two possibilities

Abstain from sex 2) Abstain from marriage
Which makes more senses considering that the verse is talking of those who can?t find the means to marry?

Ayn-Fa-Fa = to abstain from what is unlawful, be abstinent, restrain.

Other occurrences
ista'affa vb. (10)
3rd. m. sing. impf. act. 46, 2433, f. pl. acc. 2460

The verse continues to talk about documenting Al-Kitab with the MMA if they seek it and are known to be "Good". Obviously, this part of the verse is what caused you to interpret "If the Girlfriend/Boyfriend request marriage and you find them to be ready, then accept".
It says not to compel your Fatyatikum to ?unchasteness?.
Examples of the word unchasteness being used are located in 1920, 1928, 2433
It says God is merciful and forgiving after their compulsion.

So what you're saying is that in the middle of

encouraging people to get married and to abstain until marriage (see points 1 and 2) and forbidding people from forcing their Fatyat into ?unchasteness? (see point 4)
we are instructed to marry our Boyfriends/Girlfriends (whom we are already having sex with) if they ask for it? Yes. But let me put it in my words. We are told that if we don?t have the means to marry, then we should abstain (I think from marriage). So let?s consider this possibility. Someone is in an intimate relationship (sex is involved) they have been together for lets say 2 years. The girlfriend requests marriage. Here we are advised to decided that if they are ready and we find goodness in them, to do it. To marry. To sign.

That interpretation does not fit very well within the passages.

Verse 2458
2458 I don't know. It is for certain that the MMA cannot mean anything that relates to children but i'm not sure why MMA are addressed here.

2458 O you who believe, let those who are maintained by your oaths, and those who have not yet attained puberty, request your permission regarding three times before the dawn Salat, and when you put off your attire from the noon time, and after the evening Salat. These are three private times for you. Other than these times, it is not wrong for you or them to intermingle with one another. God thus clarifies the revelations for you. And God is Knowledgeable, Wise.

Why would your Boyfriend/Girlfriend and Children who have not attained puberty be the only two category of people who need to ask permission during your "private times".

I don?t know. I would also ask why would children have ask permission during our ?private times?

Verses 3013-3032
3028 I see this in support of a relationship. Is it not implying that it would foolish to fear the MMA as you fear each other (by each other i take people whom you don't well enough or strangers)

Ok lets look at the context. Leading up to 3028 is...
3013 - Warns those who set up partners that they will reject them on Judgement Day.
verses 3017 all the way to 3027 extol the Glory and Power of God.
The verse in question (302 is
3028 An example is put forth for you from among yourselves are there any from among those who are maintained by your oaths that are partners to you in what provisions We have given you that you become equal therein? Would you fear them as you fear each other? It is such that We clarify the revelations for a people who have sense.

Similar to 1671 I propose that these are rhetorical questions being asked. The answer to 3028 being "No" there are no MMA who are partners in provision such that they are equal. And that you would not fear MMA as you fear your peers.
This can be seen from the context.
The following verses 3031 and 3032 Warn against Polytheism and ascribing partners.
So 3028 sets MMA at a lower level not to be feared because they do not share in the provisions as an equal i.e. Analogy to God being all-powerful and not sharing it with any "partners".

Why would it be talking about sharing with your Girlfriend/boyfriend in such a context?
I disagree on your analogy. I will reply on this verse separately in more detail soon hopefully.

Verses 3350-3355
3350-55*
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.

I want you to look at
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, as granted to you by God;

and

...We have already decreed their rights in regard to their spouses and those who are maintained by their oaths...

and

3352 ...except what is maintained by your oath...

MMA appears a number of times in these passages. Since you're proposing the new theory, the burden of proof is on you to ensure it fits with every single verse in the Quran. So I was wondering how you would translate these verses.
I have done this before so and i have slightly changed my mind on my previous position. I will do a shorter version this time round. Ok when it says lawful, i take it to mean lawful in marriage. So this is lawful with the women he has given the dowry to (perhaps this is the stage for being a fianc???? But this is related to those times and to a specific culture and community) and the girlfriends (I am reluctant to use girlfriend here because the verse is specifically relating to the past and relationships would be different. Thus what would be expected to mean girlfriend in the past would differ to that of today. Though the essential aspect would be the oath.) That is my answer to 3350
as for 3352. I don?t know.

Response to your closing arguments
The only verse which i see as a problem to MMA meaning something like a girlfriend is 2228.
Again you must show your theory true for every single verse. Even a single inconsistancy will nullify your argument. I have pointed out problems with all the verses you have addressed.
But this problem is much less then the problem we face if we were to give MMA any other meaning other then something like a girlfriend. All other meanings would either cause clear contradictions or be less convincing then the MMA being a girfirend of some sort.
I ask of anyone to think and to provide other possibilites as to what MMA could mean and i'm pretty sure i can prove that it is much less convincing then understanding that MMA is something like a girlfriend when looking at all the relevant verses. I have already thought about other possibilities, there are none.

I am not sure if you're deliberately trying to force a choice through presenting a False Dilemma. Despite what you may think, I don't think you have thought of all possible theories because as long as your theory is unsound, than there definitely can be another meaning. You have yet to providing a sound argument that MMA means Fianc?/Boyfriend/Girlfriend etc.
By saying i have considered all the possibilities, i mean that all possibilities with respect to a sexual relationship that is not within marriage. I say this because of the clarity of how Quran permits sex with MMA IMO. Now from this i bring about the dilemma. What other class would it make sense to have sex with outside of marriage other than a fiance? It is from this that i have considered all possibilities i know of and concluded that the safest option would be a fianc?. Possibly a girlfriend. I doubt anyone could provide another option. That is what I meant. You are right however. It does look as though i am trying to force a choice through. I shouldn?t do that. But i would ask could you think of anything better than a girlfriend or a fianc? with respect to MMA?

nimnimak_11

The concept of sex being "permissible" with a fianc? defeats the object of actually getting marriage. Thus it contradicts natural reason. Sure it's not as morally disastrous as sexual slavery, but I'd rather class all these verses as esoteric/allegorical than fall into a guessed meaning which contradicts natural reason.

How would it defeat the object of getting married? It's like saying a couple cannot talk together untill they are married as that would defeat the object of getting married. How is sex different and how would this contradict reason? the purpose of marriage is longterm commiment. That's what sets it apart IMO not the abillity to have sex. Which is more reasonable?

That is why reason should be placed above quranic interpretation or understanding IMO. For only your reason can verify it. The topic of MMA has ambiguities but not contradictions. So if it comes to it. One should stick with his reason and heart. Not ambiguities or uncertainties.

AlFajr

Salam nimnimak
Please don't gloss over my post with your replies; apply some rigour. Otherwise, I don't see a point going through further rounds of debate as it will only serve to bloat the thread and give you more opportunities to "ignore" my arguments.

nimnimak_11

Salam nimnimak
Please don't gloss over my post with your replies; apply some rigour. Otherwise, I don't see a point going through further rounds of debate as it will only serve to bloat the thread and give you more opportunities to "ignore" my arguments.

Salam Aalmakto. I apologise. I will try and reply in a better style and format but I will need time as my university work and this course i have started are taking a good chunk of my time. So this will most likely be something i will do over the weekends as that is when i am most free. But in my next reply to you i hope to be detailed and clear. Please when I do reply take your time with my post.

FAR

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.

Slave girls... you ever heard of them? That's the other part of the nisa/zawja equation as referenced in quran 2433. What you say? It's the same thing technically. Nikah is a contract, bondage is a contract with less property rights because of the agreement that woman makes for extra money.

It's not sex before marriage, it's sex as not with nikah, but the alternative. Normally a muslimah cannot be a slave woman. A muslimah cannot marry a non-muslim. A muslim cannot have a slave if he has no wealth for such a thing, or cannot do justice to such women.

I might be wrong... think about it. Does that way work out along the lines of the verses that reference women? Because this is the only way for a muslim to have relationship and children with a paganess or atheist. Contract, but no property rights.

liquiddharma

How would it defeat the object of getting married? It's like saying a couple cannot talk together untill they are married as that would defeat the object of getting married. How is sex different and how would this contradict reason? the purpose of marriage is longterm commiment. That's what sets it apart IMO not the abillity to have sex. Which is more reasonable?

That is why reason should be placed above quranic interpretation or understanding IMO. For only your reason can verify it. The topic of MMA has ambiguities but not contradictions. So if it comes to it. One should stick with his reason and heart. Not ambiguities or uncertainties.

Buying a house is a long term commitment. Marriage is different from this, it is a long term sexual commitment. It's a social institution for the purpose of protecting people from getting hurt, or hurting others, in their sexual behaviour. Conversation can be had outside of marriage, even passionate, long term conversation. Conversation does not make babies or spread STDs. You can talk to a casual conversation parter in the afternoon, go back to your spouse in the evening, and they will not be jealous (unless of course they suspect you of doing something different and naughty in the prior few hours).

This is because unlike conversation, sex requires a long term commitment. Marriage is there to provide this. If you had a rule about married sex which said sex doesn't require marriage, it would totally undermine the purpose of marriage.

nimnimak_11

Salam Aalmakto

I will just focus on commenting on the verses you have quoted and I will try and address the questions you put forward

424- You direct my attention to the phrase ?what is beyond this?. The answer to that is the fatayat. In 423-24 the fatayat are not mentioned therefore they are beyond that which is set as prohibited in 423-24. They are mentioned in 425 but that does not nullify my notion of there being only two classes of women for marriage The muhsinat and the fatayat (both of which must first become MMA)

425 You asked ?Why is MMA brought up in only 1 part of this verse in regards to fatayat but not almuhsanati?.......Why is it being brought up at all other than to specify a subset of the fatayat? If MMA is "implied" in front of almuhsanati as you claim, then the verse would imply that believers have many "Girlfriends/boyfriends" to pick and choose from?

I don?t know. What I can say is that the MMA are not a category belonging only to the fatayat but they are also a category belonging to the muhsinat. In the case of muhsinat it is clear that in order to marry them, they must first be MMA. Why the 425 is phrased like that is something i don?t know. Oh and I do not think that MMA is implied in front of the muhsinat. I just think that in order to marry the muhsinat within the guidelines of the Quran, they must first become your MMA based on 424.

Continuing on with 425 you asked me ?What does masafihatin mean to you??
Looking at the root of the word, i think it to mean unlawful sex. I also take akhdanin to mean something like private or secret association
You then finally ask ?If masafihatin means illicit sex than what does akhdanin mean? Lovers? Boyfriend/Girlfriend??
My answer is no. To have a girlfriend does not necessarily mean to have a secret or private association. It?s something you tell others. Also remember that the verse is addressing how one should approach marriage. So I understand it as saying that marriage is not for secret associations or just sex. That kind of marriage is not marriage. So whilst you may have done things in terms of the law of the land, in the sight of God you may still be having unlawful sex if your intention for this marriage is not what it should be and thus the purpose of this verse saying not marrying them for unlawful sex or as secret lovers.

43 You asked me ?How is marrying only 1 orphan equal in fairness and financial terms to marrying a Nanny, Girlfriend etc.?

Ok The verse implies that should you choose to marry because you are unjust to the orphan (not looking after it properly. Lack of time etc.), Marriage can be costly and should you choose to marry more than 1 for the sake of the orphans, then a)you may not be able to be fair to all the women you marry b) you may not be able to afford it.
So if you can?t handle the cost in marrying more than one wife in an attempt to better look after the orphans then marry only one or get an MMA which is not costly like marriage. But bear in mind the similarities of an MMA to a spouse. Not just from this verse but from other verses.

You then asked ?Furthermore, didn't you say that you cannot marry anyone unless they were first your MMA? This contradicts what this verse says in regards to marrying orphans, as it seems you can marry them even though they are not your MMA.?

I disagree. 424 is clear on how to marry a muhsinat, they must be an MMA. Euqally marriage to the fatayat is the same as it is implied by the MMA which occurs prior to it in 425. UNLESS there is another category of women, then we cannot just marry them. They must first be MMA. There is no contradiction as 43 may seem in a certain way but it is overruled by 424-25.

About 1671 and 3028. I hope to address them separately in another post.

2433 You ask ?The verse in question (2433) encourages people who cannot "find" marriage to abstain (see 46 for another instance of the word abstain/ista'affa being used) until God enriches them. Abstain/ista'affa from what? What must they abstain from until they are married??

I agree 100% with the usage of the word abstain. Perhaps I did not make this clear in my last post. But here is my take Abstain from marriage until God provides the means. Would that not make more sense then abstain from sex untill God provides the means. Look at the verse with this in mind and i think it should become clear.

You then ask the following after providing some points ?So what your saying is that in the middle of encouraging people to get married and to abstain until marriage (see points 1 and 2) and forbidding people from forcing their Fatyat into ?unchasteness? (see point 4)

we are instructed to marry our Boyfriends/Girlfriends (whom we are already having sex with) if they ask for it??

Yes. Your points 1 and 2 are irrelevant in my opinion as I do not see it as abstaining from sex but see it as abstaining from marriage until you have the means for it. Forcing fatayat into unchasteness is something else. It is not a normal relationship based on the interest of the two individuals. It is something that is forced. Thus it falls outside of a normal relationship. So something like prostitution maybe. To have sex does not mean to be unchaste. It is the way you have had sex (this again is another discussion but let?s of focus on sex being permissible with the MMA first before moving on)

So ultimately in this relationship you are in within which you are having sex with your partner, if your partner asks you for marriage and you see that they are ready and that you see goodness in them. Then you marry them. You don?t just marry to unlock the ability to sleep with them. That is my understanding of the usage of "if they ask you to sign"

2458 You asked ?Why would your Boyfriend/Girlfriend and Children who have not attained puberty be the only two category of people who need to ask permission during your private times.?

I don?t know. But I would equally ask why children are required to ask permission. I would also ask how this verse alone takes anything away from the notion of an MMA being a Bf/Gf.

3350-55 You asked me to focus on certain parts

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, as granted to you by God;

Part of the problem for me here is the use of the word lawful. What I mean is that we don?t know what is lawful. Is it sex or marriage or something else? If we say marriage, then there MIGHT be an issue because of the occurrence of the word azwaaj which is said to mean wives. So if someone is your wife, then that means you are already married. Thus the lawful thing here would not be marriage but rather sex UNLESS azwaaj can mean more than just wife. Like a partner that you are not yet married to.

Now let?s take what is lawful to be sex. This then provides us with another problem. We KNOW that sex with our wives is permitted thus why would it say to the prophet that you are permitted to have sex with your wives??? Do you see why I try and avoid this verses? Because it is related to the prophet therefore I do not think it applies to us. Zubairus argued that if it?s in the Quran, then it?s related to us. But looking at the problems this poses for us, I do not see how. I could provide an answer here. But it would be an answer i would not like to provide because of my uncertainty of theses verses with regards to it?s relevance to us. If you could provide an answer to the question I ask here and say what you take to mean lawful here, then I will discuss. By this I mean i feel like i can refute any of understadings of what is lawful here based on relevance. But as things stand, I see too much ambiguity.

Finally you said ?I am not sure if you're deliberately trying to force a choice through presenting a False Dilemma. Despite what you may think, I don't think you have thought of all possible theories because as long as your theory is unsound, than there definitely can be another meaning. You have yet to providing a sound argument that MMA means Fianc?/Boyfriend/Girlfriend etc.?

By saying i have considered all possibilities I mean that all possibilities with respect to a sexual relationship that is not within marriage. I say this because of the clarity of how Quran permits sex with MMA in my opinion. Now from this i bring about the dilemma. I don?t think it is a false dilma because I cannot see any other option. Can you? What other class would it make MORE sense to have sex with outside of marriage other than a fiance? It is from this that i have considered all possibilities. I doubt anyone could provide another option. That is what I meant. You are right however. It does look as though i am trying to force a choice through. I shouldn?t do that I was partially rushing in my replies to you. I was not doing this earlier in the thread. But I have been busier and have lessened in patience with respect to this topic. I will be more dedicated in further replies to this thread they might however take more time.

nimnimak_11

Buying a house is a long term commitment. Marriage is different from this, it is a long term sexual commitment. It's a social institution for the purpose of protecting people from getting hurt, or hurting others, in their sexual behaviour. Conversation can be had outside of marriage, even passionate, long term conversation. Conversation does not make babies or spread STDs. You can talk to a casual conversation parter in the afternoon, go back to your spouse in the evening, and they will not be jealous (unless of course they suspect you of doing something different and naughty in the prior few hours).

This is because unlike conversation, sex requires a long term commitment. Marriage is there to provide this. If you had a rule about married sex which said sex doesn't require marriage, it would totally undermine the purpose of marriage.

I see your point on marriage being a longterm sexual commitment and i agree with it but i do not agree with the notion of there being no sex prior to a long term sexual commitment. It is true that people get hurt and hurt others in their sexual behaviour as well as spread killer diseases. I acknowledge this. What I also acknowledge is that if sex is done safely and rightly and reponsibily, then the problems you state won't occur. For that reason, it should not be prohibitted to all. Consider the internet. It can cause much harm and is the source of much harm. But it can be harmless and benefiting if used right. Thus it is not prohibited in all aspects. Just in some.

The safest of these options is marriage (although harm can come from that too if one is decieved) it gets less safe with fiances. Even less safe with GFs and continuing down the spectrum. I do not see it as necessary to have to take the safest option here because i feel that sex with one's fiance is safe enough in terms of not hurting each other emotionally or in terms of diseases and so on. But if the Quran says otherwise, then that's something else.

Ultimately sex does not necessarily require a longterm commitment. It does so in marriage. Just like for exmaple sleeping with someone without actual penetration. It is a longterm commitment in marriage to only sleep with your spouse but not if it is outside of marriage.

But sex is a serious matter and is no way just a casual thing IMO.

nimnimak_11

Slave girls... you ever heard of them? That's the other part of the nisa/zawja equation as referenced in quran 2433. What you say? It's the same thing technically. Nikah is a contract, bondage is a contract with less property rights because of the agreement that woman makes for extra money.

It's not sex before marriage, it's sex as not with nikah, but the alternative. Normally a muslimah cannot be a slave woman. A muslimah cannot marry a non-muslim. A muslim cannot have a slave if he has no wealth for such a thing, or cannot do justice to such women.

I might be wrong... think about it. Does that way work out along the lines of the verses that reference women? Because this is the only way for a muslim to have relationship and children with a paganess or atheist. Contract, but no property rights.

Salam Far

Am I right in saying that you understand azwaaj to mean more then just wives as in an MMA can be an azwaaj?

AlFajr

Salam Nimnimak,
I know you said you are going to completely answer my post "separately in another post".

However, I have clear proof that you still haven't read my post properly. I asked that you look at verses 3350-3355. Through glossing over these verses, you have completely ignored a conclusive argument against your theory. Look at 3355 in particular. This verse addresses the prophets wives. I don't need to explain to you issues that would arise if MMA means Fiance (let me just hint that, it would mean the Prophet's wives are cheating on him). I look forward to you addressing this point as well as the ones you have not yet addressed.

God willing you will have no doubt after you do this. I certainly have no more doubt.

In any case, I won't address your post until you completely address mine.

3353 O you who believe, do not enter the homes of the prophet unless you are invited to a meal, without you forcing such an invitation. But if you are invited, you may enter. And when you finish eating, you shall leave, without staying to wait for a narrative. This used to bother the prophet, and he was shy to tell you. But God does not shy away from the truth. And if you ask his wives for something, ask them from behind a barrier. This is purer for your hearts and their hearts. And it is not for you to harm the messenger of God, nor that you should marry his wives after him. This is indeed a gross offence with God.
3354 If you reveal anything, or hide it, God is fully aware of all things.
3355 There is no sin upon them before their fathers, or their sons, or their brothers, or the sons of their brothers, or the sons of their sisters, or their women, or those who are maintained by their oaths. And be aware of God, for God is witness over all things.

FAR

Salam Far

Am I right in saying that you understand azwaaj to mean more then just wives as in an MMA can be an azwaaj?

MMA? No it can mean contracted slave women. You can refer to the hadiths of the prophet, and how they did it. But I understand people here don't like history.

nimnimak_11

Salam Nimnimak,
I know you said you are going to completely answer my post "separately in another post".

However, I have clear proof that you still haven't read my post properly. I asked that you look at verses 3350-3355. Through glossing over these verses, you have completely ignored a conclusive argument against your theory. Look at 3355 in particular. This verse addresses the prophets wives. I don't need to explain to you issues that would arise if MMA means Fiance (let me just hint that, it would mean the Prophet's wives are cheating on him). I look forward to you addressing this point as well as the ones you have not yet addressed.

God willing you will have no doubt after you do this. I certainly have no more doubt.

In any case, I won't address your post until you completely address mine.

Salam Aalmakto

I understand. I didn?t actually gloss over it. I did look at it and saw a problem with it which prevented me from replying. Anyway let me explain in more detail what I mean

Firstly what do you understand of ?we have made lawful for you? What do you see has been made lawful here? There are 2 ways with this IMO

Marriage
Sex

I rule out marriage because the word azwaaj is used in 3350 ?we have made lawful for you the wives to whom you have.......? If they are wives, then surely that means that marriage has already taken place right?

So now let?s look at sex. Again a problem. If the prophet has wives, then surely sex with them is permissible right? So why mention it?

However looking at the rest of the verse, there is an implication that it is actually marriage here that is permissible not sex. Here is the whole verse

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.

Ok so looking at whole verse it becomes clear that all these categories of women are not just permissible for sex, but permissible for marriage. I mean would it sound within reason to state that it is lawful for you to have sex with the daughters of the sisters of you mother without any kind of marital ceremony or something?

But this does leave us with a serious problem. Wouldn?t azwaaj whom dowries have been already paid to be classified as married??? Thus why the need for it to state that it is permissible to marry?

Ok moving from this. I think your reference is 3352 no 3355 am i correct? I will comment on 3352

Here?s the verse
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.

I cannot make sense of this. No women are lawful beyond this except the MMA??
I am starting to follow you in saying that MMA is not fianc? or GF but can you still reply to the problem i have mentioned in 3350. I am now very unsure of what MMA is....What other options are there?

Oh and this is my reply to you on verses 1671 and 3028.
I?ve looked at the verses more and It does strongly look like it is a rhetorical question in 3028 which in turn would mean that 1671 advises us not to share our provisions with the MMA

1671 And God has preferred some of you over others in provision. So it is not for those who have been preferred to relinquish their provision to those who are maintained by their oaths, that they may become equal in it. Would they deny the favor of God?

I can?t disagree with you on this. Thus my argument on MMA would have to answer for this and the only thing that comes to my mind is the understanding that the Quran suggests don?t share provisions with your MMAs until you marry them and that to me currently looks weak.

It does however raise the question of what class of people could this possibly refer to? It?s like God advises us by saying that because He has preferred some of us over others in provision we should not act in such a manner with respect to our MMA that we become equal in it. Yet at the same time sex is clearly permissible with such a class.......what?s the missing link that solves this issue?

Also it should be noted that with regards to 3350 it's looking like that term azwaaj does not mean "wife" as we understand it in english. This could have many new implications which i will post after your reply Aalmakto.

nimnimak_11

MMA? No it can mean contracted slave women. You can refer to the hadiths of the prophet, and how they did it. But I understand people here don't like history.

I have not issue with the hadith provided they sound reasonable and don't contradict the Quran.
New Question if you don't mind. Contracted slave women? Would that not be more or less equal to prostitutes of today? It is a contract afterall.

AlFajr

Salam nimnimak,
Sorry nimnimak I think I am not being clear.

3353 O you who believe, do not enter the homes of the prophet unless you are invited to a meal, without you forcing such an invitation. But if you are invited, you may enter. And when you finish eating, you shall leave, without staying to wait for a narrative. This used to bother the prophet, and he was shy to tell you. But God does not shy away from the truth. And if you ask his wives for something, ask them from behind a barrier. This is purer for your hearts and their hearts. And it is not for you to harm the messenger of God, nor that you should marry his wives after him. This is indeed a gross offence with God.
3354 If you reveal anything, or hide it, God is fully aware of all things.
3355 There is no sin upon them before their fathers, or their sons, or their brothers, or the sons of their brothers, or the sons of their sisters, or their women, or those who are maintained by their oaths. And be aware of God, for God is witness over all things.

Basically what I am getting at is. It is not pure for men to ask the Prophet's wives "something" unless behind a barrier.... EXCEPT for the Prophet's Wives fathers, sons etc. and MMAs (see the Arabic, it is clearly about them). So verse 3355 is implying that the Prophet's wives had MMAs!

God willing I will try and address your post. But it will take time to do properly.

nimnimak_11

Salam nimnimak,
Sorry nimnimak I think I am not being clear.

3353 O you who believe, do not enter the homes of the prophet unless you are invited to a meal, without you forcing such an invitation. But if you are invited, you may enter. And when you finish eating, you shall leave, without staying to wait for a narrative. This used to bother the prophet, and he was shy to tell you. But God does not shy away from the truth. And if you ask his wives for something, ask them from behind a barrier. This is purer for your hearts and their hearts. And it is not for you to harm the messenger of God, nor that you should marry his wives after him. This is indeed a gross offence with God.
3354 If you reveal anything, or hide it, God is fully aware of all things.
3355 There is no sin upon them before their fathers, or their sons, or their brothers, or the sons of their brothers, or the sons of their sisters, or their women, or those who are maintained by their oaths. And be aware of God, for God is witness over all things.

Basically what I am getting at is. It is not pure for men to ask the Prophet's wives "something" unless behind a barrier.... EXCEPT for the Prophet's Wives fathers, sons etc. and MMAs (see the Arabic, it is clearly about them). So verse 3355 is implying that the Prophet's wives had MMAs!

God willing I will try and address your post. But it will take time to do properly.

Salam Aalmakto

I apologise. I assumed your quote and argument of chapter 33 was the same as what Zubairus quoted before on the thread and Zubairus' argument and quotes were based on verses 3350-52. This line of argument is new to me and it does make the notion of an MMA look.....ridiculus -X

There is one thing though (which won't make too much of a difference) going on islamawakened.com, most of the translations of that verse suggest that 3355 is about the dresscode of the wives of the prophet with respect to whom they can relax this code ie Their fathers and so on. But that would still be problematic if MMA was to be understood as what i have suggested as that would mean that the wives of the prophet (who are already married) can relax their dresscode in front of their boyfriends.....which surely they would not have if they are married to the prophet.

There is however a big problem here. That is 424 which states that the muhsinat are forbiddent to us unless they are MMA. Not to mention the notion of the possibility of sex with the MMA.

The only thing that remains in my mind, is the possibility of the notion of different meanings to the phrase MMA. So like literally taking the meaning of those whom you have contractual rights over and then just applying it to life such that it would encompass doctors, psychiatrists.....girlfirends and so on. But this does look weak.

Only address this post if interests you. I did not mean them to be questions for you to address but i meant them as questions that express my own concerns with the notions of MMA and the possibility that someone may already know something that i may not know. I'l will look more on this topic and post what i find in the thread. I have no idea how long that will take.

Thank you for clarifying.

FAR

I have not issue with the hadith provided they sound reasonable and don't contradict the Quran.
New Question if you don't mind. Contracted slave women? Would that not be more or less equal to prostitutes of today? It is a contract afterall.

No not prostitutes. Prostitutes don't do contracts. And I don't think sharing would be allowed either.

There are several cases where poor women would demand such a contract, and who would not be in the catagory of marriageable for the muslim firstly, they'd need to be non-monotheist, secondly they'd either need to be of women whos husbands had lost to the muslims after an act of war perpetrated against muslims, or economic migrants departing from a land, or within one's own land not able to find husbands from their people but rather interested in a muslim.

How's this possible? Quran 2221 gives us a hint. We are to teach those women about islam so that they become believers, monotheists specifically. And then when they believe do we marry them. This solves any problems of not enough muslim women, such as is the case in the middle east where most of the muslimahs demand so much more than the muslims can afford. Of course there is a case of high unemployment there and abouts as well as in many places.

There's also quran 424 which states that marrying women who are already married is forbidden, unless they are slave girl because the point is to protect yourself from secret fornication.

You can refer to the following as well 28.12.29 and so http//www.themodernreligion.com/misc/slave/slavery_verses.htm

It seems that it's okay to use this second option, but the goal is to teach women about islam. Of course many who do marry outsides the folds of islam practically fail islam, but of course that's another matter altogether, which would require the community of muslims to set up some sort of test that two people would be appropriate for others in marriage nikah or contracted slave.