Philosophy: Sex before marriage
-
I think the first thing we got to look at is what does Zina means as that is the word used throughout the whole Quran time after time.
Regularly it means both Fornification and Adultry thus covering both ends. I've seen people challenge that word before but never seen a fully convincing argument on it. Maybe we can finally crack down and be 100% sure on things
I personally believe that it does mean both those things because 233-234 state you gotta guard your private parts except around your wife or MMA.
So I lets begin talking on if its truly allowed or not without any idea of morality in on whether "its not nice" or "its wrong" or "its dirty" or "it gives STDs" forget all those and lets straight up just talk on if its allowed or not, which my personal view is that Zina means both those as that is what it means since classical arabic times as well as 233-4, but lets see what you say
-
So far, I think that in the Quran it is written that sex outside of a committed relationship is forbidden.
-
So far, I think that in the Quran it is written that sex outside of a committed relationship is forbidden.
All it said was Zina, unless there is a verse that says as such.
-
All it said was Zina, unless there is a verse that says as such.
I mean when you put all the verses together and make a conclusion from it - that's what I understood.
-
I mean when you put all the verses together and make a conclusion from it - that's what I understood.
That is what I think too, but I wanna further investigate as this topic seems to wanna try to do. So lets wait for TC )
-
I think the first thing we got to look at is what does Zina means as that is the word used throughout the whole Quran time after time.
Regularly it means both Fornification and Adultry thus covering both ends. I've seen people challenge that word before but never seen a fully convincing argument on it. Maybe we can finally crack down and be 100% sure on things
I personally believe that it does mean both those things because 233-234 state you gotta guard your private parts except around your wife or MMA.
So I lets begin talking on if its truly allowed or not without any idea of morality in on whether "its not nice" or "its wrong" or "its dirty" or "it gives STDs" forget all those and lets straight up just talk on if its allowed or not, which my personal view is that Zina means both those as that is what it means since classical arabic times as well as 233-4, but lets see what you say
This was not my aim for this topic. I will quote my earlier post and add on to it.
The key is to understand that morality is not intellectual and logical. If I ask for an example of evil, one will give me an answer such as ''murder'' or ''thievery'', but this just a verbalization of our emotion, because these are not logical explanations, we cannot intellectually differentiate evil from good. The sphere of the intellectual and the emotional are different, as much as one cannot explain why X was sad on the day Y mathematically, one cannot say that this act was evil or good based on a bullet-proof intellectual fact.
Thus, the peasant and the aristocrat will both systematically agree upon what is good and what is not, regardless of what they have or have not read. Upon this understanding, one will systematically arrive to the conclusion that the only law to be adopted is the one that is universal and appertains to each and every human being that is born on this earth, regardless of his class.
This is why I insisted on giving exclusively moral arguments, as Allah's sunnah does not change, the "rules" within the Qu'ran were to be followed from the first morally developed human beings. A time where there were no STDs, etc. Secondly, I prefer not to try to understand what is what based on the translations of the Quran, as they are an absolute mess. It is said in the Qu'ran that we have numerous examples in the universe, the animals and ourselves as well; and interesting fact, some animals are noted to be promiscuous...
I will give you an example We have always thought that homosexuality was seen as an abomination quranically. I have never been able to find any reason for it morally. Upon research, I understood that a great number of species are homosexual or bisexual. Upon some more research, I understood that we have archaeological proofs (carvings etc.) proving there were previous mobs, before the one of Lot, that practiced homosexuality (and thus the "crime" of the people of Lot was not homosexuality because it is said in the Qu'ran, that they practiced something which has never, ever, been done).
I hope you get the idea...
-
Where does pre marital masturbation fit in all of this? Is it a gross sin, just a sin, controlled lust?
Well, as a rule of thumb
Using ones private parts would only be due to their spouses or concubine-like fugures. (235-6, 7030)
then we see"But whoever seeks beyond that, then those are the transgressors (237)Masturbation, premarital intimate relationships would all be beyond the point of spouse-ship and concubine-ship, and thus would be a trans-gression/crossing the lines.
-
Well, as a rule of thumb
Using ones private parts would only be due to their spouses or concubine-like fugures. (235-6, 7030)
then we see"But whoever seeks beyond that, then those are the transgressors (237)Masturbation, premarital intimate relationships would all be beyond the point of spouse-ship and concubine-ship, and thus would be a trans-gression/crossing the lines.
depends on how you view that verse. Many of us don't take 237 to include masturbation and that entire section just refers to other people and thus going beyond unguarding it to people other than "wife" and "MMA" and not referring to oneself as one doesn't guard something of their own from themselves. Masturbation is not sex and those verse were directly talking about sex and chastity considering you "guard" against other people and you sure as hell don't lose your chastity/unguard or have sex by masturbating.
-
Masturbation, premarital intimate relationships would all be beyond the point of spouse-ship and concubine-ship, and thus would be a trans-gression/crossing the lines.
This is absurd. Sex is allowed with spouses and MMA - ones with whom one has a committed relationship. Masturbation is not sex, and there is no evidence in the Quran that it is forbidden. You misinterpret the phrase and say that it means "using one's private parts", which is a loose, and ambiguous interpretation. "Guarding the private parts" clearly refers to sex.
-
Well, from my understanding, Guarding ones private parts EXCEPT, the word here is EXCEPT, upon spouses, or concubines.
The wording, anyone goes beyond is one of the transgressors, would include anyone else, including yourself.
Simple. -
Well, from my understanding, Guarding ones private parts EXCEPT, the word here is EXCEPT, upon spouses, or concubines.
The wording, anyone goes beyond is one of the transgressors, would include anyone else, including yourself.
Simple.con?cu?bine/k?NGkyoobn/
Noun
(in polygamous societies) A woman who lives with a man but has lower status than his wife or wives.
A mistress.It definitely does not refer to a concubine. MMA /=/ concubine.
-
well, we could translate it as "what your right hand possess"
Please note that the before would be from my understanding. please do not slander my understanding.
The Word used is ILA, which have the notion of EXCEPT, we have to guard our private parts except upon our spouses or "what our right hand possesses"
The same world is used when "There is no god EXCEPT (ILA), GOD"....
and whoever goes beyond this except would be a transgressor.
Thus from my understanding, Masturbation etc would be beyond using/applying your private parts with your spouses/what your right hand possess. -
The creative force is correct, there is no debate here.
The problem is when you choose to take English translations of the Quran as the authentic message of Allah. As we can never be sure of the correctness of the translation of verses, we ought to put every rule, statement, etc. that is within the English translations under the test; if it fails philosophically (such as the beating of the wife etc.), then systematically the translation is wrong. You must understand that I cannot abide to the rules of a translation.
Thats my approach also.
Things to consider philosophically
-
Is there any significance to the first time someone has sex? as in is it more potent in the bringing about of love and affection or does it fade with the number of different partners that one has? If it fades, depending on how strongly it fades, then probably sex should be limited to the minimum number of different partners as possible (thus excercising more greater caution before engaging in the act) Though it's not likely that this is the case.
-
What are the odds of catching an std or bringing about pregnancy? Obviously the riskier the odds, the less sex one should have outside of a marriage or a serious relationship.
In my opinion if it was 100 percent safe and there was no fading as in the case of 1) then there should be no limit on sex except with those whom already have partners (this would mean that i think prostituation to be acceptable)
Because of STDs and pregnancies, I would limit myself to people I know and I wouldn't do it too much since the odds are not 100 percent. I've got to accept that potentially if I make this girl pregnant that i'm gonna raise the child with her (provided that it's too late for an abortion) and that if I pass on to her an STD, then its my fault and im accountable for that. Hence the need for regular health checks. Otherwise I'd consider myself as risking too much for the other person but if I do the health check, i've done all that needs be done IMO.
Basically if someone has regular health checks, is reasonably prepared to raise a child with whomever they are allowing themselves to have sex with, then in my opnion there is nothing wrong with what they do at all. This is of course provided that 1) is not an issue.
-
-
well, we could translate it as "what your right hand possess"
Please note that the before would be from my understanding. please do not slander my understanding.
The Word used is ILA, which have the notion of EXCEPT, we have to guard our private parts except upon our spouses or "what our right hand possesses"
The same world is used when "There is no god EXCEPT (ILA), GOD"....
and whoever goes beyond this except would be a transgressor.
Thus from my understanding, Masturbation etc would be beyond using/applying your private parts with your spouses/what your right hand possess.Ma malakat aymanuhum = those who are committed to by oath
Ya-Miim-Nun = right side, right, right hand, oath, bless, lead to the right, be a cause of blessing, prosperous/fortunate/lucky.
Miim-Lam-Kaf = to rule/command/reign, be capable, to control, power/authority, king, kingdom.Nothing to do with concubines and "what your right hand possess" is also a poor translation. It becomes clear that the relationship to an MMA cannot be concurrent to that of a spouse, yet it is very similar, ie. a relationship/commitment is there.
-
And you have to keep in mind that the truly just interpretation applies to the entire time period since the revelation of the quran.
The advance of technology e.g. STI testing, contraception, safer abortions, etc cannot change the true ruling defined by God. Whatever worked for the people back then must work for the people now.
Today some things look like they could work due to technology but there is absolutely no way they can be wholesome, just or legitimate. Technology can mitigate the negative effects of evil but that is not a substitute to nor an improvement over abstaining from evil altogether.
Essentially this means that whatever forms of sexual contact were prohibited before technology are still prohibited. The straight path does not bend with time.
-
And you have to keep in mind that the truly just interpretation applies to the entire time period since the revelation of the quran.
The advance of technology e.g. STI testing, contraception, safer abortions, etc cannot change the true ruling defined by God. Whatever worked for the people back then must work for the people now.
Today some things look like they could work due to technology but there is absolutely no way they can be wholesome, just or legitimate. Technology can mitigate the negative effects of evil but that is not a substitute to nor an improvement over abstaining from evil altogether.
Essentially this means that whatever forms of sexual contact were prohibited before technology are still prohibited. The straight path does not bend with time.
Allah says that all of what is prescribed to us, is for our own good. I agree that the "rules" within the qu'ran do not bend with time, (the argument is more in my favor than in yours) but if the technological progress of a community has made one of the ''rules'' become useless and purposeless (while Allah says it is for our own good, thus it serves for a purpose and is 'useful' then either the current interpretation and translation is wrong or Allah is.
- As morality is universal, if we are honest and hopefully pure in mind, we have to agree that having sex with someone you are not engaged to is not wrong.
- There are no philosophical arguments against having sex before marriage.
- To say that we can get sick if we have sex with the wrong person to refute, is a 'risk' argument, as the same can be applied to water, food etc.
Because we do not have a correct translation of the quran, we must put any 'rule' within the traditional translations to the test, if we do not, it is blind faith.
bravo sun
You have switched from Jihadist to Cheerleader, I must admit that I much prefer this.
http//1.bp.blogspot.com/-AELcO1JpgNc/TZCYRqv7mVI/AAAAAAAAAS0/bikhS2RiTZk/s1600/Cheerleader.gif
-
I find it odd that you are still opposed to any translation, at all, as if it was completely unintelligible, when you don't like the message, yet when ever it suits you, you quote and use translations. How does that work?
Morality is not universal. It is completely subjective to individuals and cultures.
Philosophy is not universal. It is completely subjective to individuals and cultures.
Your problem is you don't believe what the Quran has to say, that there is no translation in existence that is correct and that is just wrong thinking. If you understood the Quran you would base your morality on what it teaches and you would base your philosophy based on what it says. Yet you paint yourself into a corner because you can't understand the Arabic and won't believe any translation that is against your personal philosophy, your personal sense of morality and your own personal opinion/theology of what you wished the Quran actually said.
-
Peace, everyone.
I'm new to the forum but if I may, I would like to give my philosophical (if you can call it that) view on this. !As I see it, sex before marriage is philosophically an issue due to the precedent it sets. Assuming that sex before marriage is okay, and then it is okay to theoretically have sex with anyone. The issue is then a large incentive of marriage is gone. Now I'm not saying that marriage is all about sex, but as muslim, we do find that a large component of it is. We want to meet the right person, to share something intimate (sex) to eventually have children and share our lives with them correct?
So if we can have sex outside of marriage, then we can also have children outside of marriage and then you reach the point of, "well what's the point of marriage?".
This is dangerous territory, because marriage is not just simply saying "I agree to have sex with you and only you and one day raise a family", marriage is a bond, agreement and vow to care and protect each other, help each other and respect each other. Marriage is there for a purpose, it creates a binding agreement of people that should not be broken unless it must. That is why Allah (swt) dislikes divorce so much, because it undermines the idea of marriage (a vow, oath), however as he is all forgiving, all merciful he understands that we do not always pick the right person for this bond and make mistakes.
Think of it like this, if sex before marriage is okay, then what's the point of marriage at all? Surely we can then just decide between ourselves that "yeah, I want children with you". I mean you've probably had sex with people before that point and she/he has so they can't complain if after children you decide to have sex with other people too.
All of this eventually develops into the mind-set a lot of western people have today, which is "oh what's the point of marriage; it's just a stupid ceremony". And they're right, if you can do everything outside of marriage as what you can do within, then marriage does become pointless.
This is my mind is why sex before marriage cannot be allowed. As it eventually undermines the idea of marriage. And Allah (swt) created marriage for a reason.