How sex before Marriage is not haram (prohibited) according to the Quran
-
Salam nimnimak
My understanding of the matter is that you can only have sex with spouses and MMA, as the Quran mentions that we should guard our genitalia from anyone except spouses (which can be boy/girlfriends, husbands/wives, concubines, lovers etc.) and MMA.
What I don't understand is how do you think a one night stand is allowed? Do you consider the partner in a one night stand as a spouse?
-
Also note that in the Bible concubines were not punished the way a wife was if she did commit sexual misconduct, precisely what the Koran said when it said that if any MMA commits a sexual misconduct she should get half of whatever punishment for the non MMA. So basically MMA is a relationship between a man and woman that is based on oath, but does not have the same criteria that is usually accompanied in a proper marriage and that makes them socially vulnerable. This may explain why the Koran talked about MMA as somewhat of an inferior arrangement.
But nowhere in the Bible did it ever connected concubines with slavery. Slavery deprives one partner the right of choice and is not a mutual agreement but rape one party by another. Completely unacceptable.
If you look at the wikipedia article about concubinage, the only mentioning of concubines with slavery is concerning Islam. A damn shame. And even worse its often associated with prisoners of war. So a bad situation became even worse. That is what i call the lowest of the low. No wonder Muslim clerics try to hide all this from the Muslim masses.
Going by that the modern equivalent is not girlfriend and boyfriend but fiance and fiancee. With the first case there is no real oath but the latter indicates a promise to be bound. It's funny how the dowry has gone from something useful to a useless shiny rock encased in metal.
However why would it say that if you cannot marry an independent woman then marry an MMA?
Also how people can deduce that God the pure and most good permits rape is beyond me. Dress it up as much as they want with the "prisoners of war" crap, nobody wants that happening to their own daughters/wives/mothers.
-
Going by that the modern equivalent is not girlfriend and boyfriend but fiance and fiancee. With the first case there is no real oath but the latter indicates a promise to be bound. It's funny how the dowry has gone from something useful to a useless shiny rock encased in metal.
However why would it say that if you cannot marry an independent woman then marry an MMA?
Also how people can deduce that God the pure and most good permits rape is beyond me. Dress it up as much as they want with the "prisoners of war" crap, nobody wants that happening to their own daughters/wives/mothers.
I don't know if you can say that boyfriend and grilfriend is not an oath. Yes it may not be formal but in all realities there is an oath. Or else none of the partners will get upset if the other cheats.
-
I don't know if you can say that boyfriend and grilfriend is not an oath. Yes it may not be formal but in all realities there is an oath. Or else none of the partners will get upset if the other cheats.
Shalom Aleikhem,
I guess that depends on your understanding of "oath". If you think about it, there is a sense of oath/commitment between a prostitute and his/her client. Ofcourse both would feel betrayed if the other one betrays.
By the way, I have not read your views on the topic of the thread. I am just commenting on this specific post I quoted. )
Peace
------------ Student of Allah -
To be more precise, it is not a formal oath. Boyfriend-girlfriend is barely a step or two above total casual sex. The bond is still disposable, it's even called 'getting dumped'. It's treated differently by different people whereby to some it's like marriage, to others it's a sex contract to be made and broken at will thus making it a really ambiguous term. Marriage is the same everywhere monogamous with both sides heavily invested emotionally and financially.
The gist of 423-25 is that the relationship must be explicitly declared and known this person is with that person, nobody else is to go between them.
Anyway MMA cannot be 'slave girls'/'prisoners of war' because in 419 believers are forbidden from taking girls against their will in the first place. Now I'm confused, why is there so much frenzied discussion on here and elsewhere about 'slave girls'/'prisoners of war' when 419 obviously forbids this in the first place? I assume that the prisoners of war obviously would not consent to any supposed marriage. Am I missing something?
-
Shalom Aleikhem,
I guess that depends on your understanding of "oath". If you think about it, there is a sense of oath/commitment between a prostitute and his/her client. Ofcourse both would feel betrayed if the other one betrays.
Excuse me?! Say what?? I think everyone here can agree that the above is absolute nonsense. There is no love/commitment in a "relationship" between a prostitute and someone who uses/pays for this service. There is no oath/commitment involved - it is merely a service.
-
To be more precise, it is not a formal oath. Boyfriend-girlfriend is barely a step or two above total casual sex. The bond is still disposable, it's even called 'getting dumped'. It's treated differently by different people whereby to some it's like marriage, to others it's a sex contract to be made and broken at will thus making it a really ambiguous term. Marriage is the same everywhere monogamous with both sides heavily invested emotionally and financially.
There are people who live together and spend the rest of their lives together in a sexual/caring relationship without getting married..
Furthermore, what you said above is clearly not the case. Just look at Middle Eastern and Arabic countries where polygamy is a common practice and other cultures who have completely different practices from the West.You can also easily get a divorce - there is the same pain as in a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship and it is very easy to get a divorce, at least in the Western World.
The gist of 423-25 is that the relationship must be explicitly declared and known this person is with that person, nobody else is to go between them.
People know when others are together in a relationship, as long as one is not completely ignorant, blind and/or stupid. Not only marriage has that characteristic.
-
Excuse me?! Say what?? I think everyone here can agree that the above is absolute nonsense. There is no love/commitment in a "relationship" between a prostitute and someone who uses/pays for this service. There is no oath/commitment involved - it is merely a service.
Shalom aleikhem,
Sorry Sir but I beg to differ. It all depends on the definition of commitment. What do you mean when you say commitment.
I think you are defining commitment as an emotional debt. But then again, it is not impossible to hurt a prostitute's feelings by not paying him/her after their service. And obviously I also do not agree that "commitment" is absent from services based on money.
( Just for the record of whoever cares, I am not advocating for or against prostitution in this and my earlier post. It is just a part of my thought based entirely around BIGMO's remarks on boyfriend-girlfriend relationship that I quoted in my previous post)
Peace
------------ Student of Allah -
Sorry Sir but I beg to differ. It all depends on the definition of commitment. What do you mean when you say commitment.
I think you are defining commitment as an emotional debt. But then again, it is not impossible to hurt a prostitute's feelings by not paying him/her after their service. And obviously I also do not agree that "commitment" is absent from services based on money.
He pays, they have sex. She goes on to the next client. He goes on to then next prostitute. That's it. What oath/commitment do you see in that? The "hurting feelings" argument is weak. Usually payment is upfront, and, if not, then I would assume that more than mere "feelings are hurt".
There has to be an oath/commitment in the relationship that makes it long-term and that involves, care/love and loyalty towards one another, as explained quite a few times in this thread by various people.
Also, I am assuming you are taking back your earlier points about marriage?
-
Shalom Aleikhem,
I guess that depends on your understanding of "oath". If you think about it, there is a sense of oath/commitment between a prostitute and his/her client. Ofcourse both would feel betrayed if the other one betrays.
By the way, I have not read your views on the topic of the thread. I am just commenting on this specific post I quoted. )
Peace
------------ Student of AllahSo its a financial arrangement and not an emotional or sexual one. The verses about MMA was dealing with sexual arrangement and it specifically said that the arrangement should not be based on lust alone.
MMA is not a boyfriend grifriend arrangement anyways, its a urfi marriage. A concubinage arrangement. But I define Zina as being betrayal. So the boyfriend and grilfriend arrangement is applicable for Zina. That is cheating here is Zina.
-
He pays, they have sex. She goes on to the next client. He goes on to then next prostitute. That's it. What oath/commitment do you see in that? The "hurting feelings" argument is weak. Usually payment is upfront, and, if not, then I would assume that more than mere "feelings are hurt".
There has to be an oath/commitment in the relationship that makes it long-term and that involves, care/love and loyalty towards one another, as explained quite a few times in this thread by various people.
Also, I am assuming you are taking back your earlier points about marriage?
Shalom Aleikhem,
Ohh.. so we are talking about long term commitment. Well, one could argue about being a sugar daddy What is care/love for you may not be the same for me. Regardless, as I stated in my previous posts, I am only playing around with words and their meanings and our perception. Nothing serious.
What point did I make earlier about marriage ? Sorry, cant remember. Would you mind quoting what you are referring to ?
So its a financial arrangement and not an emotional or sexual one. The verses about MMA was dealing with sexual arrangement and it specifically said that the arrangement should not be based on lust alone.
MMA is not a boyfriend grifriend arrangement anyways, its a urfi marriage. A concubinage arrangement. But I define Zina as being betrayal. So the boyfriend and grilfriend arrangement is applicable for Zina. That is cheating here is Zina.
I understood your point
Peace
------------- Student of Allah -
Peace Bigmo
I'm sorry for the late replys. It's been the last few days of my degree and i've been busy with saying goodbyes and packing stuff to return home. I'm home now and should have more time.
The verse starts by saying for those who can not marry the fatiyat. So the rest of the verse must be talking about the alternative, which is MMA.
425 And whoever of you cannot afford to marry the independent female believers, then from those maintained by your oaths of the believing young women. 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 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.
I'm not good with Arabic but going by the free-minds translation and also a look on corpus suggests that those who can't marry the muhsinat, should marry the fataya that are of MMA. Which implies that both the muhsinat and the fatayat must be of MMA before being permissible for marriage.
If we take the previous scriptures, then we have concubines along side wives. For me its a best way to understand these verses althought not perfect. I could be wrong of course.
Could this work with the idea that before marrying the muhsinat and the fatayat, they must first become a concubine?
-
Salam nimnimak
My understanding of the matter is that you can only have sex with spouses and MMA, as the Quran mentions that we should guard our genitalia from anyone except spouses (which can be boy/girlfriends, husbands/wives, concubines, lovers etc.) and MMA.
What I don't understand is how do you think a one night stand is allowed? Do you consider the partner in a one night stand as a spouse?
Salam Red
Sorry for the late reply
From a rational perspective, I no longer agree with the idea of a one night stand but from a Quranic perspective (as far as I understand now) so long as there is an oath between the two in the one night stand, then it's ok but there is something that i discovered recently which complicates things. I'l post it at the end of these replys.
-
Excuse me?! Say what?? I think everyone here can agree that the above is absolute nonsense. There is no love/commitment in a "relationship" between a prostitute and someone who uses/pays for this service. There is no oath/commitment involved - it is merely a service.
Yes I agree that there is no love commitment, but is that necessary? There is still an oath and the service may be deemed acceptable in light of the Quran. As in its not punishable perhaps. My understanding is that so long as there is a mutual agreement, and that the mutual agreement is not transgressive or constitute lewdness, then its ok. Some would view prostitution as lewd, others may not.
-
So its a financial arrangement and not an emotional or sexual one. The verses about MMA was dealing with sexual arrangement and it specifically said that the arrangement should not be based on lust alone.
Which verse was this?
-
Another verse to consider is
2237 And if ye divorce them before tamasshunna, but after the fixation of a dower for them, then the half of the dower (Is due to them), unless they remit it or (the man's half) is remitted by him in whose hands is the marriage tie; and the remission (of the man's half) is the nearest to righteousness. And do not forget Liberality between yourselves. For Allah sees well all that ye do.
The root of tamassuhunna
Miim-Siin-Siin = To meet or touch or feel a thing with the hand, touch a thing without intervention or interference, strike or smite, afflict or befall, be distressing or difficult of accomplishment.
You might wanna check out the following links for more details on the potential meanings of this roothttp//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume7/00000239.pdf
http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume7/00000240.pdf
One argument for sex being exclusive to marriage is perhaps 2237 and the use of the word tamassuhunna. If the word means touch, then we need to determine what kind of touch is being talked about here. It would be highly unreasonable to think that any sort of physical contact is constituted as tamassuhunna in the context of 2237. Here is a cross-reference of the term in the Quran
http//corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=mss#(22376)
In 347 it is clear that Mary is referring to the sort of touch that potentially leads to a child
She said "My Lord, how can I have a son when no human being has been with me?" He said "It is thus that God creates what
He wills, when He decrees a command, He merely says to it 'Be,' and it is.Thus from this we might say that in 2237, tamassuhunna refers to the sort of touch that leads to a child. This means unprotected sex. However since protected sex does not 100 percent guarantee to prevent potential pregnancies and is thus not 100 percent protection, then it must be the case that it is not a sufficient measure.
So it might be argued that whilst we can unguard our private parts to MMAs, there is a limit put on us by 2237
But 2237 does not appear to prohibit sex with MMA. It suggests that when there is a marriage contract, the following laws must be in place. This does not encompass, MMA as far as i can see but its worth consideration. -
It is worth looking at some translations of the word MMA; Please see the translations of Asad & Shabir;
Edip-Layth 7030 Except around their spouses or those committed to by oath, there is no blame.
The Monotheist Group 7030 Except around their spouses or those committed to by oath, there is no blame
Muhammad Asad 7030 with any but their spouses - that is, those whom they rightfully possess - 13 for then, behold, they are free of all blame,
Shabbir Ahmed 7030 They have intimate relations only with their spouses - that is, those who are rightfully theirs through wedlock. For such relationship they are free of blame. 4
The MMA's are your legal wives , not women for use and dispose of or rather not take any responsibility for.
-
Which verse was this?
4.25. If any of you have not the means wherewith to wed chaste believing women, they may wed believing girls from among those whom your right hands possess And Allah hath full knowledge about your faith. Ye are one from another Wed them with the leave of their owners, and give them their dowers, according to what is reasonable They should be chaste, not lustful, nor taking paramours when they are taken in wedlock, if they fall into shame, their punishment is half that for free women. This (permission) is for those among you who fear sin; but it is better for you that ye practise self-restraint. And Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
-
Couldn't it be argued that this is only in the case of when an MMA is being considered for marriage that it should be the case that they are for example not lustful? It doesn't really cover the idea that an MMA necessarily must be a bond that involves love and affection. But that if an MMA is considered for marriage, then it should be the case that the MMA has those attributes.
-
It is worth looking at some translations of the word MMA; Please see the translations of Asad & Shabir;
Edip-Layth 7030 Except around their spouses or those committed to by oath, there is no blame.
The Monotheist Group 7030 Except around their spouses or those committed to by oath, there is no blame
Muhammad Asad 7030 with any but their spouses - that is, those whom they rightfully possess - 13 for then, behold, they are free of all blame,
Shabbir Ahmed 7030 They have intimate relations only with their spouses - that is, those who are rightfully theirs through wedlock. For such relationship they are free of blame. 4
The MMA's are your legal wives , not women for use and dispose of or rather not take any responsibility for.
Peace 357
Apologies for late reply,
I don't agree with their interpretation because there is a word that seperates zawj and MMA in that verse
http//corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=23&verse=6It might be argued that the use of the word "or" conveys that the status of MMA is entailed by being zawj . They are zawj and that to be zawj it must be the case that they are of those whom your oaths possess, but I can't see why MMA would then be mentioned in the verse if it is entailed by zawj.
Also if you look at 423-24, it implies that a zawj is different to an MMA. You marry an MMA, it is not the case that the MMA is already your zawj. So there is a distinction between the two as far as I can see.
not women for use and dispose of or rather not take any responsibility for
If both sides are reasonably in agreement, then both sides are responsible not just the man. So if it becomes the case that the woman gets pregnant or catches an STD, she did what she did knowing the risks. She is responsible for that. Similarly, if the man gets her pregnant or he catches an STD, then he is responsible for that because he got himself involved knowing the risks. It may be that what he did ultimately resulted in more gain than harm or more harm than gain but I don't see anything inherently wrong in having sex just for the sake of pleasure.
The question is whether the risks involved are justified from a moral perspective. Unwanted Kids and STDs lead me to believe that unless it is 100 percent safe, then it is not justified. Thus I would argue something like anything with the exception of penetration is acceptable with an MMA so long as it does not constitute lewdness or transgression. But I don't think anything is inherently wrong in having sex outside of marriage.
There is also another thing to consider. What if a couple who are not married want to have kids without being married. Is there any good reason to stop them from doing so?