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

nimnimak_11

Salam nimnimak,

in general i got this notion of needing to reevaluate all the definition of the terms that are involved with family, relationship, inheritance, sexual intercourse, morality(lewdness/fa7sha, bagiyya, stealing) etc into one integrated theme..
i have this feeling that it tends towards creating a heaven on earth..

the idea is like at first people will be reluctant to embrace this heaven on earth idea the way they didn't comprehend the earth not being flat in those days..
Allah SWT played with conventional words like madadnaha(spread/stretch) to give the notion of it's flatness common in that time,
but He also played word riddles like da77aha(ostrich egg) to give a possibility of a different interpretation..

that interpretation only now we understood for certainty after taking a snapshot from out of space..

what i'm getting at is this
why the complication of different words to mean the same thing, unless it wasn't intended to mean the same thing in the first place, such as
mawlood, zawj, ba3l to point to the notion of husband?? or maybe they are specific terms for specific purposes with specific paradigms..
etc.etc.etc.

i hope i got my point across..
i think we're into something, right?

wallahua3lam
peace

I hope that which we're onto will either be the truth or lead to it

I think part of people's understandings of the various words have contributed to the varying interpretations

So if any of you could summarise what you have come up with /concluded/unresolved, that would be nice

Salam Sarah

I did do this a few pages back but some stuff has been added so I'l do another one but i'l start a thread and put a link to redirect to this thread if it's going to be discussed. That way the summary will always be without it being lost in many pages of discussion and it can be discussed on this thread.

johan

We all have blind spots.
Follow your heart but take your brain with you.
ambiguity is there for a reason, why do you think?
We're all different, so how can we all be equal?

Salam Sarah ,
I love your quotes..where did you get them from..
they so describe this thread's status..

Salam nimnimak,
great job with the summary..hope to work on it in these two weeks..i'm going to be thorough..
inshaallah..

peace all

nimnimak_11

Salam Sarah ,
I love your quotes..where did you get them from..
they so describe this thread's status..

Salam nimnimak,
great job with the summary..hope to work on it in these two weeks..i'm going to be thorough..
inshaallah..

peace all

Thanks Johan,
Good luck bro

Peace

SarahY

Salam Sarah ,
I love your quotes..where did you get them from..
they so describe this thread's status..

I found "Follow your heart but take your brain with you" a long time ago on the internet. everything else i made up.

i think 2230 can be used to establish the definition of zawj in relationship to marriage. the phrase would refer to the next commitment of husband/wife that is apart from the ex/previous-husband/wife.
i also think that is why marriage has nothing to do with locking with who you can have sexual intercourse with, but rather to who your next born child will be burdened/prized(depending on pov) to in terms of the upkeep and in terms of the inheritance status..
and this is probably why you don't just exchange between two husbands and two wives as in 420, but you need to undergo a divorce ceremony first to honor the commitments of the womb, and hence the 3 periods..otherwise the commitment to share the burden is of no use ever since the marriage was commenced between the two..

this didn't make much sense to me. excluding next born child, that statement about marriage seems to indicate that even if you are married you are free to have sexual intercourse with others.... also it seems to indicate that marriage is purely for childbearing, which i don't agree with. however i may have misunderstood you

Nima

I hope that which we're onto will either be the truth or lead to it

Salam Sarah

I did do this a few pages back but some stuff has been added so I'l do another one but i'l start a thread and put a link to redirect to this thread if it's going to be discussed. That way the summary will always be without it being lost in many pages of discussion and it can be discussed on this thread.

you could link the page without starting a new thread

I agree. This implies that having children with other men to whom one is not married to is impermissible. What then happens in the case of when a couple want a child but the man can't have kids so they find a sperm donor? What does that do to our discussion of to whom kids should be born and by who's sperm and egg they should be born?

So many what-if's right? you like to complicate things. If it's agreed that you can't have kids from outside the wedlock/husband how would it be ok to take sperm from someone else? There's always adoptions.

At the moment I think that sexual acts with MMA, provided that children are impossible is permissible
Children aren't "impossible" even with protection. they're not totally child free proof.

nimnimak_11

Salam Sarah

you could link the page without starting a new thread

I thought a thread might be a better option. It can be updated there and then as one continuous thread page of summary. If i'd posted a link on the first page of this thread to a summary on say page 51, and then more discussion happens and the summary gets an update on page 60, this would be more complicated then just adding the findings between pages 51-60 to the summary thread instead of summarising 51-60 on page 61 and then posting another link of summary on page 1 of the thread.

So many what-if's right? you like to complicate things. If it's agreed that you can't have kids from outside the wedlock/husband how would it be ok to take sperm from someone else? There's always adoptions.

It's a complicated subject. I want to consider all that I can. What if's help rule out or strengthen certain things.
For example is the Quran's emphasis on the exclusivity of sexual activity in marriage, or the exclusivity of pregnancy in marriage or both. If we take it on the idea of sexual acitivity alone, then we could say that it is possible that the sperm of another man can penetrate a woman without any sexual activity. Does this face difficulties? yes IMO

I think that we can rule out the idea that Quran's emphasis is only on sexual acitivity because it seems that 2228-233 is implying that pregnancy should primarily or only occur in marriages.

If we take the idea of pregnancy alone and not sexual activity; does this face problems? no IMO
There is nothing to imply otherwise as far as i am aware. The implication of this is that sexual activity can take place outside of marriage. But there are two limits on this as outlined by the Quran. One is that the individual has to be MMA, the other is that (this is a bit more controversial) that whatever sexual activity is involved, it must guarantee that there will be no pregnancy.

Children aren't "impossible" even with protection. they're not totally child free proof.

Agreed. Which is why the sexual activity should of the nature that does not involve positions or actions that make a child possible.

For example, there could be sexual activity without actual penetration thus 0% of pregnancy but sexual activity present. Or penetration could happen but then the man can pull out before releasing although this is more controversial as it can be argued that this involves risk even if it is very minimal (the guy could get carried away for example)

If we take the idea that no sexual activity or pregnancy is permissible outside marriage, would that hold? no imo

How then do we account for MMAs in 235-6 and 423-25? why would we place a further restriction when there is none to be implied elsewhere in the scripture? How do we also account for making the fatayat and the muhsinat an MMA before they are permissible for marriage?

For these reasons I currently think that sex is permissible outside of marriage and that in the case of pregnancy it is either obligatory or just better to occur in marriages. If pregnancy or the sort of act that can lead to pregnancy occurs outside of marriage, then the waiting period must logically apply.

SarahY

OK and how do you define an MMA? what makes someone an MMA???

please read Asad's notes on MMA in regards to 236

Lit., "or those whom their right hands possess" (aw ma malakat aymanuhum). Many of the commentators assume unquestioningly that this relates to female slaves, and that the particle aw ("or&quot denotes a permissible alternative. This interpretation is, in my opinion, inadmissible inasmuch as it is based on the assumption that sexual intercourse with ones female slave is permitted without marriage an assumption, which is contradicted by the Qur?an itself (see 43, 24, 25 and 2432, with the corresponding notes). Nor is this the only objection to the above-mentioned interpretation. Since the Qur?an applies the term ??believers" to men and women alike, and since the term azwaj ("spouses&quot, too, denotes both the male and the female partners in marriage, there is no reason for attributing to the phrase ma malakat aymanuhum the meaning of "their female slaves??; and since, on the other hand, it is out of the question that female and male slaves could have been referred to here it is obvious that this phrase does not relate to slaves at all, but has the same meaning as in 424 - namely, "those whom they rightfully possess through wedlock (see note 26 on 424) - with the significant difference that in the present context this expression relates to both husbands and wives, who "rightfully possess" one another by virtue of marriage. On the basis of this interpretation, the particle aw which precedes this clause does not denote an alternative ("or&quot but is, rather, in the nature of an explanatory amplification, more or less analogous to the phrase "in other words" or "that is", thus giving to the whole sentence the meaning, "save with their spouses - that is, those whom they rightfully possess ", etc. (Cf. a similar construction 2562 - ??for him who has the will to take thought -that is , has the will to be grateful".)(Quran Ref 236 )

if you think it doesn't make sense, try re-reading it. let me know what you think

salam

nimnimak_11

Salam Sarah

Going through 423-25, it's somewhat clear IMO that MMA is a status that applies pre-marriage.

424 And the independent (muhsinat) from the women, except those maintained by your oaths (MMA)

What would you take this as? In this passage it appears to me that an MMA is someone you marry not someone who you are already married to or have been married to previously. MMA with marriage then turns into a zawj. But in response to this you could say that a similar thing has been done with the term zawj at 2232

2232 And if you divorce the women, and they reach their required interim period, then do not make difficulty for them if they wish to remarry their husbands (zawj)

In this case though I think that these were once husbands (a marriage occurred for these to take the status of zawj) They may have officially lost the status after divorce but the phrase remarry their husbands seems to indicate that zawj is still in reference to post-marriage not pre-marriage given that in the past they married then turned to zawj.

the following verses are perhaps the strongest proofs

2431 and 2433

2431 And tell the believing females to lower their gaze and keep covered their private parts, and that they should not reveal their beauty except what is apparent, and let them put forth their shawls over their cleavage. And let them not reveal their beauty except to their husbands, or their fathers, or fathers of their husbands, or their sons, or the sons of their husbands, or their brothers, or the sons of their brothers, or the sons of their sisters, or their women, or those maintained by their oaths

Corpus.quran.com is down so i can't check what term is used in place of husband here but having a rough look at the arabic i think that it is baal. I could be wrong though. But here there is a distinction between husband and MMA. Unless you think that there is a distinction between zawj and husband, then 2431 is IMO pretty strong proof

2433....And let those who are not able to marry continue to be chaste until God enriches them of His Bounty. And if those who are maintained by your oaths seek to consummate the marriage, then document it with them if you find that they are ready, and give them from the wealth of God which He has bestowed upon you.

This I think is the clearest indication that MMA is pre-marriage. That which is in italics I have to double check with corpus but i think it's pretty clear. Also the last sentence is pretty strong in indicating that this is a relationship that is moving towards a marriage rather than a marriage that is moving forwards.

OK and how do you define an MMA? what makes someone an MMA???

I'd say someone who you just have an oath with. This could be just a mutual verbal agreement or even an implicit agreement (like you go in a restaurant and it is implicitly agreed without one directly saying that i will pay for the food i eat here)

What do you think?

SarahY

I will say i do not believe you can have sex or sexual intercourse freely so long as the person has 0% pregnancy. Because to me that just sounds like allowing prostitution and to me that is a lewd act.

What constitutes an MMA for sex/sexual conduct? There is no proof currently just assumptions. Remember verses need to be read in context and not taken in one instance and applied wholly on others.

I showed you a passage of 424 in which i believe MMA refers to marriage partner. Because sex with slaves or other than marriage is contradictory. For example

43 uses to term MMA if you read the whole verse the nouns that are used are governed by the imperative verb ?marry? ?fainkihoo. I don?t think that?s a coincidence. Why should you marry them? A free women? or a slave? If you can have sexual counters with them why do nikkah?

Next back to 424 forbidden to you are all married women except whom you MMA. In other words except the married woman you are married to, otherwise all married women are forbidden so then that would mean your own wife would be forbidden to you! Then it goes on about who is lawful to you. Then it talks about being chaste not unchaste. And the word used is ghayr masafaheen. Sin-fa-ha is the root of that word which denotes fornication/ touch. If you read the notes of Lane he mentions

In the Time of Ignorance, when a man demanded a woman in marriage, he said, inkahini and when he desired fornication, he said, sahifini.

http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume4/00000093.pdf

It says to be ghayr masafaheen do not be touched in a fornicative matter! How can you justify sex outside of marriage then?

Now you mention 2431 as strong proof. Let me ask do you think the verse is allowing sexual counters with their fathers, or husbands fathers, or their sons etc etc? I THINK NOT. Seriously read the verse in context plus consider the grammar. in this verse i do not think MMA refers to spouse but rather used as an expression referring in general to one?s close dependants or domestic servants of either sex.

I don?t see how 2433 has anything to do with allowance of sexual acts. Read 2431 to 33. Read it in context. There is clear indication that touch is not allowed ?do not coerce them into baghaa (prostitution)?

That's what i think so far.

nimnimak_11

Salam Sarah

The post isn't as long as it looks. Just alot of quotes that make it look long.

Because to me that just sounds like allowing prostitution and to me that is a lewd act.

I don't think excessive sleeping around can be likened to a sexual relationship that does not have a marriage certificate in place.

If you sincerely believe that sex outside of marriage (in whatever shape or form) constitutes lewdness, and this is really obvious to you after giving thought, then in accordance with the Quran, we shouldn't go near lewdness. In that there is a prohibition from the scripture for those who believe that sex outside of marriage is inherently lewd.

If someone does not see sex with their girlfriends/boyfriends as inherently lewd, and they have not found anything that prohibits this, and their reason is not against it, then its a different thing. This is the position im arguing for. Approach the Quran without the assumption that sex outside of marriage is wrong, then see if you can find a prohibition in there somewhere. Since nothing is prohibited unless stated or sufficiently implied via the scripture.

What constitutes an MMA for sex/sexual conduct? There is no proof currently just assumptions.
The case here is to argue that sex with the MMA is permissible an investigation into what makes someone an MMA is something I was hoping to pursue in more depth later. At the moment i think that so long as there is an oath that is enough to make someone an MMA. This is not an assumption because of the phrase "those who your oaths possess" what is more assumption like is how do you sufficiently make an oath. Promise? Documentation? explicit? implicit etc. That's what im planning on looking at in more depth.

I showed you a passage of 424 in which i believe MMA refers to marriage partner. Because sex with slaves or other than marriage is contradictory. For example
43 uses to term MMA if you read the whole verse the nouns that are used are governed by the imperative verb ?marry? ?fainkihoo. I don?t think that?s a coincidence.

What exactly in 43 is there that conveys that MMA is a marriage partner? Is it not more clear in accordance with 43 that an MMA is someone you marry?

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

Why should you marry them? A free women? or a slave? If you can have sexual counters with them why do nikkah?

In my opinion, you marry an MMA so that you start a family with them and so that the issue of inheritance falls into place. Is this not a better assumption than the idea that you marry and MMA so that you can have sex with them?

Say x has slept with 5 different women, he marries the 5th one so he can start a family and commit to the 5th for the rest of his life and so that inheritance and children will be documented.

Now say x has engaged in 5 different relationships. He slept with none of these women, he marries the 5th one. Why? To have sex? or to start a family and life long commitment?
Does sex really change anything with regards to why x marries person 5? I think yes in the sense that he makes a more informed decision about his future wife.

Next back to 424 forbidden to you are all married women except whom you MMA. In other words except the married woman you are married to, otherwise all married women are forbidden so then that would mean your own wife would be forbidden to you!

424 is talking about who is forbidden to you for marriage. Not who is forbidden to you for sex so when you suggest
all married women are forbidden so then that would mean your own wife would be forbidden to you!
it is wrong in the sense that the verse is referring to who is prohibited for marriage not for sex. Look at 422 and the start of 425 does that not imply sufficiently that the verses are in relation to whom you can marry?

Even if we say that it is not in relation to marriage, as it may very well not be, your point still wouldn't hold. The verse is prohibiting a list of women not all women. It does not prohibit the zawj. Nor does it prohibit the MMA as is clear from the verse. This would also be consistent with 2431, 235-6 and many other verses.

Then it talks about being chaste not unchaste. And the word used is ghayr masafaheen. Sin-fa-ha is the root of that word which denotes fornication/ touch

I'm assuming that your referring to 425. 425 is only with regards to the fatayat. not everyone. They (the fatayat) should seek to be muhsin not sin-fa-ha. And of course they should seek not to be masfan lewd, or have impermissible sex. No one should, whatever their status

It says to be ghayr masafaheen do not be touched in a fornicative matter! How can you justify sex outside of marriage then?

See all my points on MMA and what is permissible and impermissible sex.

Let me ask do you think the verse is allowing sexual counters with their fathers, or husbands fathers, or their sons etc etc? I THINK NOT. Seriously read the verse in context plus consider the grammar.

Neither do I! How did you reach that conclusion from 2431? I'm fairly confident i've read it in detail and i really don't see how you've made that conclusion from that verse or any other verse that surrounds it. Could you point this out for me please?

MMA refers to spouse but rather used as an expression referring in general to one?s close dependants or domestic servants of either sex.

My whole point is that an MMA is a class different to spouse and this verse makes a distinction between the two. I don't think it justified for for us to narrow the class of MMA down to close dependents or dometstic servants of either sex. On what grounds would you exclude notions of girlfriend and boyfriend which is essentially nothing more than someone whom you have an oath with?

I don?t see how 2433 has anything to do with allowance of sexual acts. Read 2431 to 33. Read it in context. There is clear indication that touch is not allowed ?do not coerce them into baghaa (prostitution)?

I think i have read it in context. Correct me if Im wrong.

2433....And if those who are maintained by your oaths seek to consummate the marriage, then document it with them if you find that they are ready, and give them from the wealth of God which He has bestowed upon you.

What do you take of this? Does domestic servant or close dependent match this verse or context?

There is clear indication that touch is not allowed ?do not coerce them into baghaa (prostitution)?

And i agree, you should not force women into sex that they don't want. That is impermissible sex. If their actions are with their MMAs or their spouses, then there is no prohibition and it is permissible IMO.

SarahY

I'll repost

I said

Quote

Then it talks about being chaste not unchaste. And the word used is ghayr masafaheen. Sin-fa-ha is the root of that word which denotes fornication/ touch

you said

Quote

I'm assuming that your referring to 425. 425 is only with regards to the fatayat. not everyone. They (the fatayat) should seek to be muhsin not sin-fa-ha. And of course they should seek not to be masfan lewd, or have impermissible sex. No one should, whatever their status

My thoughts and comments

Refer to 424-25 and 55.

You made fatayat the exception not everyone. But take a look at 55 you must make women of other scriptures the exception too.

So in other words you?ve degraded the believing women into having sex not the fatyat nor believers of other scriptures. yet nothing is wrong with believers of other scriptures you can marry them according to 55. So how is that you can?t have sex with them?

Masafuhan means fornication/ sex outside of wedlock/ acts of fornication. Look on the link i gave about lanes. In the middle column, Here it is again

http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume4/00000093.pdf

why marry the muhsineen who are ?masafuhan? it says not to. So the logic of having sexual acts with them pre-marriage makes no sense at all.

Let me explain again if it is not clear, masafuhan does not mean sex out of ill will, it does not exclusively mean "lewd" it can mean fornication i.e. pre-marital sex.

SarahY

Continued

2431 talks about guarding their modesty and not to display their beauty except to their husbands etc etc etc and it includes MMA.
2432 talks about marriage to the righteous and if some are poor, God will enrich them.
2433 says to be chaste/ to restrain the self (for those who don?t have wealth until God enriches them). The word use is walyastafifi (ayn fa fa ? root). or for those who seek the writing from your MMA. The person who has MMA is told to give them if you know in them any good and give them from the wealth of God which He has given you.

In these contexts i do not see how MMA has any relation to SEX or SEXUAL ACTs.

Firstly let me show you how you are logically flawed with the mma theory of sexual allowance in 2431 if you are married are you saying people have mma?s while married? So a wife can have a husband and a MMA boyfriend for sexual counters? That?s absurd.

2432 read the message overall there is no indication of having sex before marriage or making others lawful to you sexually before marriage.

Now one of the most important points i should address is in 2433 it talks about writing for the MMA if there is any good in them.

Specifically them is used Fihim in arabic. It is a masculine plural word. In Arabic grammar a masculine plural word can only refer to a group of males, or a mix of male and female. It can NEVER be females only.

My understanding of writing to them and giving wealth has links to the previous verse; that is they stay chaste, do not marry until God has graced them with wealth. An MMA guardian/owner /someone with MMA?s (however you wanna see it) is told to let them marry to give them of their wealth so that they can marry.

Ultimately, God knows best.

nimnimak_11

Thanks for reposting Sarah

You said

Refer to 424-25 and 55.

You made fatayat the exception not everyone. But take a look at 55 you must make women of other scriptures the exception too.

When I said
I'm assuming that your referring to 425. 425 is only with regards to the fatayat. not everyone. They (the fatayat) should seek to be muhsin not sin-fa-ha. And of course they should seek not to be masfan lewd, or have impermissible sex. No one should, whatever their status

I did not mean to make fatayat the exception overall, just in that verse. Whoever enters a marriage should not be masfuhan. But again the emphasis is on entering a marriage, whoever enters a marriage is doing so for reasons other than sex as is suggested from 55, 424-25 but this does not apply to relationships with MMA. I'm suggesting that a sexual relation (that guarantees no kids) with an MMA can be purely for pleasure but this is not acceptable in a marriage.

yet nothing is wrong with believers of other scriptures you can marry them according to 55

I don't think you can marry the muhsinat women untill they become those whom your oath possess (MMA) first. 423-24

why marry the muhsineen who are ?masafuhan? it says not to. So the logic of having sexual acts with them pre-marriage makes no sense at all

Yes it does IMO
Looking at 424-25 55, it appears to me that the fatayat and the muhsinat not being masafuhan applies post marriage not pre-marriage.
This leads me to say again Whoever enters a marriage should not be masfuhan. But again the emphasis is on entering a marriage, whoever enters a marriage is doing so for reasons other than sex as is suggested from 55, 424-25 but this does not apply to relationships with MMA. I'm suggesting that a sexual relation (that guarantees no kids) with an MMA can be purely for pleasure but this is not acceptable in a marriage.

Ok some questions remained unanswered from my post to you

What exactly in 43 is there that conveys that MMA is a marriage partner. Is it not more clear in accordance with 43 that an MMA is someone you marry?
On what grounds would you exclude notions of girlfriend and boyfriend which is essentially nothing more than someone whom you have an oath with?

Also out of interest
3) What's your understanding of the unguarding of one's private parts in 235-6?

nimnimak_11

Sarah you've missed so much from the thread. The answers are in there. Check the summary thread and just check the summary i've put up there and if you don't find your answers there or find them inadequate then post comments here and i'l get back to. For your convenience here is what is written in the summary

Looking at this, I don?t think that it would make sense for MMA to exclusively mean a girlfriend/boyfriend or fianc?. That would then mean that the prophet's wives had boyfriends, which appears to make no sense. It has been suggested that MMA has multiple meanings. I agree and i think that a finace or boyfriend/girlfriend could be one of the meanings it entails. I think this because I cannot see MMA to mean gf/bf in 3353-55 whilst I cannot see it to mean anything other than gf/bf when we look at 423-24 with regards to the muhsinat.

How do you account for 235-6 and also that the muhsinat and the fatayat must be MMA first before they are permissible for marriage (if 423-25 conveys this)??

With regards to chapter 24, answers are in the summary

Another verse that was posted as an objections was 2433 More specifically this part
2433 ?....And let those who are not able to marry continue to abstain until God enriches them of His Bounty.?
What someone takes as abstain here is another limitation of MMA. If you take abstain as sex, then no sex with MMA. This is subjective and some may have a stricter view such as minimal physical contact or possibly a less strict view than sex such as abstaining from the kind of sex that leads to kids (unprotected sex).

Savage_carrot suggested that only those who have the means to marry, can marry thus the abstaining here refers to something other than marriage since the individual who lacks the means for marriage cannot marry and it is thus impossible.
The verse is referring to those who don't have the means for marriage. Is the word means in this verse referring to necessary requirements for marriage such as witnesses and a relevant authority to enforce the marriage or is it referring to something like wealth? I think that it refers to something like wealth since witness and other conditions are almost always available and so marriage is possible as opposed to impossible. This is further implied by the following 2433 "...until God enriches them of His Bounty" I don't think one's increase in bounties corresponds to witness, documentation and so on.

nimnimak_11

To further clarify

Firstly let me show you how you are logically flawed with the mma theory of sexual allowance in 2431 if you are married are you saying people have mma?s while married? So a wife can have a husband and a MMA boyfriend for sexual counters? That?s absurd.

No because then it would constitute masafuhan and this within a marriage is lewdness as made clear by 55, 424-25 whereas an MMA on it's own would not.

2432 read the message overall there is no indication of having sex before marriage or making others lawful to you sexually before marriage.

The indication is primarily in 235-6 then 423-25

savage_carrot

Here is what i understand

2433 And let those who are not able to marry continue to abstain until God enriches them of His Bounty.

I see two possiblities. Either abstain from

a) sex or b) marriage

Now considering that the verse is advising those who have not the means to get married, i would think that when the verse says abstain, it means abstain from marriage and not sex.

Here's a comparison i did in my mind which helped me decide

And let those who are not able to marry continue to refrain from sex until God enriches them of His Bounty.
And let those who are not able to marry continue to refrain from marriage until God enriches them of His Bounty.

I don't understand nimnimak_11, if they are not able to marry they'll obviously refrain from marriage since they are not able to marry? That is what "not being able to marry" would mean as it is? It is obviously pointing at something other than refraining from marriage as not being able to marry automatically means that they can't but refrain from marriage. You can refrain if you have the option to do something. If you don't have the option to do it you can't do it anyway so you're refraining from it one way or the other.

It's like over on the pork threads someone said pig meat means "meat that is bad" so the verse apparently said don't eat meat that is bad because it is bad.

Peace.

Why didn't i see it that way -[
I think it was the "untill God enriches them of his bounty" part of the verse that lead me to my understanding.
I thought If you don't have the means for getting married then wait untill God provides with the means which sounded ok in my head.

but the word abstain which is not the same as wait, would logically have to apply to something other than marriage and the only other thing i can think of is sex.

but then this creates a dilema IMO when taking verses such 235-6 into account as such verses say that sex with MMA leaves us blameless. Now either

a) Sex with MMA is blameless but it is better to abstain untill marriage (not a sin if you don't abstain) or
b) Sex with MMA can only happen after marriage which would then mean that there would be two sexual partners as i really can't see MMA being the same as azwaaj and morally i can't see sex being acceptable with more then one partner in a marriage so that just leaves one possiblity a

Something must be missing or misunderstood somewhere with regards to MMA and exclusivity of sex to marriage.

I'm still researching this MMA thing just thought I'd share my thoughts on what seemed solid imo. I have some time now to really get into it. Btw, it's refreshing discussing with you, one doesn't have to deal with "that doesn't make sense but I'll still argue about it" D

Peace.

I'm glad you did and I thank you for it as it has influenced my thinking on this issue. After discussing with Aalmakto, i was in a completely uncertain state regarding this issue in terms of quranic advice. I was trying to find a verse that may perhaps suggest that abstaining from sex untill marriage might be a good thing as i still did not believe in there being anything concrete about sex being exclusive to marriage (I still don't because of MMAs) and that was the only other lead i felt i could take on the issue of relations with regards to the Quran. At the very least, 2433 (on current understanding) implies that it is better to abstain from sex untill marriage.

The MMA issue has been bothering me for a while now I must admit. Just the other day I was having a discussion about it and I realised I have to go through everything again to find a satisfactory conclusion. Previously when I've participated/read such, it hasn't been entirely spot on for me too so yeah, one of the priorities on my list.

I was just reading the recent replies and saw my nick and wondered when did I participate in this huge thread and not recall. Just curious, since the above are all the replies I can find from myself in response to your posts using a search...I'm assuming refrain from sex before marriage was ditched somewhere along the way? Paste or summarise/clarify in a nutshell please?

peace

savage_carrot

If the case is the same as the one in the quote now as well

a) Sex with MMA is blameless but it is better to abstain untill marriage (not a sin if you don't abstain) or
b) Sex with MMA can only happen after marriage which would then mean that there would be two sexual partners as i really can't see MMA being the same as azwaaj and morally i can't see sex being acceptable with more then one partner in a marriage so that just leaves one possiblity a

i disagree with a) because that would depend on teh perspective of person reading the verse taking it either as a commandment (i.e. must be done, obviously if one screws up, it's not something that's allowed regardless) or as a you can if you want, whatever. The former would be the view we'd take in the absence of any solid evidence for the latter.

i disagree with b) because I don't see women being allowed two male sexual partners or more after a marriage (regardless of what we think we can do before). Women have MMA as well as Sarah pointed out and previously in discussions I've read.

nimnimak_11

I was just reading the recent replies and saw my nick and wondered when did I participate in this huge thread and not recall. Just curious, since the above are all the replies I can find from myself in response to your posts using a search...I'm assuming refrain from sex before marriage was ditched somewhere along the way? Paste or summarise/clarify in a nutshell please?

peace

Yeah sure. Since in this thread this an important point, I added it to the summary and gave my updated opinion on it in the summary thread Here it is

Another verse that was posted as an objections was 2433 More specifically this part
2433 ....And let those who are not able to marry continue to abstain until God enriches them of His Bounty.
What someone takes as abstain here is another limitation of MMA. If you take abstain as sex, then no sex with MMA. This is subjective and some may have a stricter view such as minimal physical contact or possibly a less strict view than sex such as abstaining from the kind of sex that leads to kids (unprotected sex).

Savage_carrot suggested that only those who have the means to marry, can marry thus the abstaining here refers to something other than marriage since the individual who lacks the means for marriage cannot marry and it is thus impossible.
The verse is referring to those who don't have the means for marriage. Is the word means in this verse referring to necessary requirements for marriage such as witnesses and a relevant authority to enforce the marriage or is it referring to something like wealth? I think that it refers to something like wealth since witness and other conditions are almost always available and so marriage is possible as opposed to impossible. This is further implied by the following 2433 "...until God enriches them of His Bounty" I don't think one's increase in bounties corresponds to witness, documentation and so on.

If abstain understood as not referring to marriage, an answer needs to be given with regards to what it is that we are supposed to abstain from. If we say sex, then it must be asked then what exactly is the purpose of un-guarding one's private parts to their MMA. Is it just to show one another? Is contact allowed? how much?

It was also in this thread at page 45

Does my position hold about abstain and means?

nimnimak_11

If the case is the same as the one in the quote now as well

i disagree with a) because that would depend on teh perspective of person reading the verse taking it either as a commandment (i.e. must be done, obviously if one screws up, it's not something that's allowed regardless) or as a you can if you want, whatever. The former would be the view we'd take in the absence of any solid evidence for the latter.

i disagree with b) because I don't see women being allowed two male sexual partners or more after a marriage (regardless of what we think we can do before). Women have MMA as well as Sarah pointed out and previously in discussions I've read.

If my position doesn't hold, then I will respond to this because i think this is directly related to that.

nimnimak_11

I was just reading the recent replies and saw my nick and wondered when did I participate in this huge thread and not recall. Just curious, since the above are all the replies I can find from myself in response to your posts using a search...I'm assuming refrain from sex before marriage was ditched somewhere along the way? Paste or summarise/clarify in a nutshell please?

peace

In case you mean summarise abstain from sex in general here is like the shortest summary I can do

235-6 unguard private parts to zawj and MMA (this verse if taken alone entails that we can have sex with MMAs and zawj, what now needs to happen is for us to see if we can find other restrictions on either the zawj or the MMA)
423-25 cannot marry the muhsinat or the fatayat untill/unless they are MMA (this alongside 235-6 suggests that one aspect of the MMA is something like finace or girlfriend or other like arrangement, 2433 further supports this)
2237 appears to imply a restriction on what can be done with the MMA but not with the zawj.

2237 the word tamassuhunna is important. 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

The lead to a cross-reference of the word tamassuhunna that lead to 347

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 hasyamsasn (touch(ed)) 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 (tamassuhunna) and a discussion with Johan on inheritance along with 2222-236 lead me to conclude
Sexual acts with the MMA are permitted so long as it guarantees that no child will result from it.

In this way, the ungaurding of the private parts (along with how MMA is for marriage) is accounted for and also I think the women's waiting period is also accounted for based on the 0 possibility of children.

That's roughly where the discussion is at the moment.

savage_carrot

If my position doesn't hold, then I will respond to this because i think this is directly related to that.

Thanks for the summary, yeah I started responding to that...

The verse is referring to those who don't have the means for marriage. Is the word means in this verse referring to necessary requirements for marriage such as witnesses and a relevant authority to enforce the marriage or is it referring to something like wealth? I think that it refers to something like wealth since witness and other conditions are almost always available and so marriage is possible as opposed to impossible. This is further implied by the following 2433 "...until God enriches them of His Bounty" I don't think one's increase in bounties corresponds to witness, documentation and so on.
Read the thread a bit more after I posted...skimmed it previously. If Sarah's perspective is that it's referring to MMA being given wealth to allow for them to get married and the first half isn't referring to everyone generally then you'd need to see it from that angle and whether it's fitting/contradictions etc. I'd say it's an interesting view because we have 2433 now dealing with one subject, rather than disjointedly whenever I'd read it.

I'm still not sure how refraining fits here, if we see 46...it's also denoting something that can be possibly be done/is what some could/might do (by those wanting to consume etc) and telling us not to do it. It would seem that MMA marriage is dependent on wealth as in wealth is the requirement for the MMA to marry? That's why they need to wait? But that how would go with it's still something that can possibly be done/is what some could/might do but should refrain? Is it suggesting wealth should be a requirement and don't do it/better not to till you have it? Does wealth/bounty refer to something other than monetary/financial that the MMA would require for marriage? And even if it does, how can it be required if they can still do it but shouldn't?

It's like we think requirement X (whatever it is) is needed for the MMA to marry but refrain suggests it's not a requirement more like what you should/have to do. Maybe. Whenever I start on this topic it starts taunting me 'I'll never tell'.