How sex before Marriage is not haram (prohibited) according to the Quran
-
I still do not agree with 'sex outside of marriage' esp. promiscuity. On the other hand I do have reason to believe that MMA could refer to fiances/"girlfriends".
If you take MMA to encompass finances or girlfriends, where is the prohibition on sexual activity with the MMA?
More importantly if you were to pin it down from A Quranic perspective, what constitutes sex? As in at what point could it be said that a couple have gone too far with regards to their physical interactions with each other?In trying to answer the second question I came to the realisation that there is nothing in the Quran that conveys this sort of guideline. The only implication I got from the Quran is don't have kids until after marriage. Don't have illegal sex (zina) don't engage in lewdness (fahisha) such as sexual acts that involve degradation, fetishism and so on.
Given that you can have kids without having sex (sperm donors for example) I thought it necessary that the Quran's message regarding the purpose of marriage is for the sake of having kids rather than for the sake of sex.
So in my opinion, this answers how far one can go in terms of physical interactions with one's legitimate unmarried partner
So long as the odds of having a child is 0%, and so long as the physical interaction involved is not lewd or illegal (for example someone who under the legal age to have sex) then the Quran's guidelines have been met.
-
Ma malekat aymunkum can translated "posses their right hand"
Posses their right hand is allogarical setence and its reffering to "slave/maid" if you read the whole ayah in Quran
Word "hand" means employee, this means another "hand" of the boss to accomplish some works.Quran itself contains some allogarical words/sentences, like verse 2188 "... takulu (eat) your property..." this not means literally you eat your property.
In verse 236, if you look on entire ayah in the Quran again this slave means slaves who was liberated and already married with you
Quran never mentioned of any girlfriend-boyfriends things.
Slave in the Quran actually was slavery tradition in Arab in the past time and no courtship tradition in Arab in that time too.We also ordered to meet non mahram woman with hijab/barrier 3353-5, also ordered to protect our wild gaze 2430-1 3748
I don't think slave/maid makes sense with regards to Quran's overall usage of the phrase Ma Malekat aymunkum. I also don't think it to morally make sense for us to understand MMA as slave/maid. Why would it be ok to have sex with our maids/slaves but not our girlfriend with whom there is mutual consent?
3353-55 is about the prophet and his wives only. It doesn't make a distinction between mahram and non-mahram women as far as I can see.
-
If you take MMA to encompass finances or girlfriends, where is the prohibition on sexual activity with the MMA?
More importantly if you were to pin it down from A Quranic perspective, what constitutes sex? As in at what point could it be said that a couple have gone too far with regards to their physical interactions with each other?In trying to answer the second question I came to the realisation that there is nothing in the Quran that conveys this sort of guideline. The only implication I got from the Quran is don't have kids until after marriage. Don't have illegal sex (zina) don't engage in lewdness (fahisha) such as sexual acts that involve degradation, fetishism and so on.
Given that you can have kids without having sex (sperm donors for example) I thought it necessary that the Quran's message regarding the purpose of marriage is for the sake of having kids rather than for the sake of sex.
So in my opinion, this answers how far one can go in terms of physical interactions with one's legitimate unmarried partner
So long as the odds of having a child is 0%, and so long as the physical interaction involved is not lewd or illegal (for example someone who under the legal age to have sex) then the Quran's guidelines have been met.
I have not seen anything in the quran that talks about when sexual interaction may begin between a couple.
However there is a clear sign here
420 (Asad) But if you desire to give up a wife and to take another in her stead, do not take away anything of what you have given the first one, however much it may have been. Would you, perchance, take it away by slandering her and thus committing a manifest sin?
So we see that surely sexuality and finance exchange is identical in the eyes of God, to the point that taking the finance out of a sexual relationship is considered a grave wrong, and consequently a kind of retroactive zina.
Perhaps fiancee relationship can count as MMA. But the key is that money must change hands from the man to the woman, always. So a person cannot hold a relationship or contract as such without finance, as the finance is what actually makes that contract valid.
I do not agree with it being to do with children as the punishment on Zina is for illicit sex with no doubts, not children - a pregnancy from zina would of course likely dissolve the need for four witnesses. Contraception is not available to everyone, so are these to be left out? Of course, this is not the strongest argument against it as surely there are many commands of God which only apply here and there to relevant people.
Whatever is the case, we maintain that
1.) Relationship must entirely be in the open
2.) Wealth must change hands from male to female
3.) Contract/witnesses is necessary, to prevent accusations of zina -
So we see that surely sexuality and finance exchange is identical in the eyes of God, to the point that taking the finance out of a sexual relationship is considered a grave wrong, and consequently a kind of retroactive zina.
I agree that there is a clear wrong in giving up on a fiance to be with another girl and taking back what's been given to the fiance because most likely, with a finace there is intimacy as well as a solid oath in place. But I don't think this relates to the wrong of zina. Zina is illegal sex as far as I understand it.
420 (Asad) But if you desire to give up a wife and to take another in her stead, do not take away anything of what you have given the first one, however much it may have been. Would you, perchance, take it away by slandering her and thus committing a manifest sin?
The verse that follows this states "And how can you take it when you have become intimate with each other, and they have taken from you a solemn covenant."
The important question is does sex necessarily entail intimacy anda solemn covenant
It doesn't necessarily entail a solemn covenant but it does necessarily entail intimacy.
From a purely logical perspective of 420-21, the idea of taking back what one has given to their partner only applies if and only if they have become intimate with their partner and made a solemn covenant with their partner. If either one of these two components are missing then the idea of not being able to take back what was given does not apply because the word and logically demands that both components be in place.I do not agree with it being to do with children as the punishment on Zina is for illicit sex with no doubts, not children
I see your point. But the Quran's outline on the punishment of zina (illegal sex) and the the Quran's outline on when one should marry are two different things. Zina is the breaking of one of the most (if not the most) serious commitments one can make to another person. This is surely a punishable act. Having kids outside of marriage appears to be advised against in the Quran but not seen as a punishable act.
2433 says that those who don't have the means for marriage, should abstain. Abstain from what? Having kids or having sex? Given that one can have sex without having kids and one can have kids without having sex, I think it more reasonable in the context of 2433 to say that the Quran is advising against having kids outside of marriage rather than sex because having kids requires certain resources whereas sexual activity does not need certain resources. I think this fits well with 43
Contraception is not available to everyone, so are these to be left out?
Sexual activity can happen without contraception. So long as sperm is not directed at the female in anyway, the odds of pregnancy are 0% (unless there's a miracle). For extra safety if there is no contraception, I don't think there should be any penetration whatsoever.
it as surely there are many commands of God which only apply here and there to relevant people.
I completely agree. That's why we should neither add or take away from the commands.
Whatever is the case, we maintain that
1.) Relationship must entirely be in the open
2.) Wealth must change hands from male to female
3.) Contract/witnesses is necessary, to prevent accusations of zina- I think I agree based on the notion of not meeting the women secretly.
- Only in marriages this must become the case. I have not seen this be demanded outside of marriage. Even in a marriage it's not a must. It depends on the bride as far as I know.
- Contract and witnesses is demanded in the case of when someone wants to get married. As far as I know, he demand of contract doesn't apply to other types of intimate relationships. Witnesses might be necessary in the sense that the relationship is not kept in secret. I think zina can only apply to a person who is already married or to someone who engages in sex with under-aged kids or other illegalities such as bestiality. If there are witnesses to those things, then there can be conviction of zina.
-
All I can say is what's the purpose...you've been socially programmed by the current state of the society...If you love someone and want to be intimate then there is no reason why you shouldn't marry, if you don't love someone enough to get married than why be intimate?
Marriage is the beginning not the end...3021
You probably don't have daughter or sister and you can't see things clearly...
(I am repeating myself...)
brickwall -
This may have already been answered, but,,,
2431 Tell the acknowledging women to lower
their gaze and guard their private parts,
and that they should not show off their
attraction except what is apparent, and
let them cast their clothes over their
cleavage. Let them not show off their
attraction 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 children that come after
them, or those who are still their
dependants, or the male servants who are
without need, or the child who has not
yet understood the nakedness of women.
Let them not strike with their feet in a
manner that reveals what they are
keeping hidden of their attraction.
Repent to God, all of you
acknowledgers, so that you may succeed.Are they not allowed to show off their attraction to their boyfriends before marriage? How does that work when having sex before marriage?
Edit With a quick search I found out that this was addressed \
-
-
All I can say is what's the purpose...you've been socially programmed by the current state of the society...If you love someone and want to be intimate then there is no reason why you shouldn't marry, if you don't love someone enough to get married than why be intimate?
Why is it necessary for them to get married before they can have sex?
Ok let's go with the idea of sex can only happen after marriage.Let's say a couple decide to not to have sex until after they are married. Unfortunately for the guy, the girl was just marrying him for sex and nothing more. She has sex with him and then demands a divorce breaking the guy's heart.
In reverse let's say another couple also decide not to have sex until after they are married. Unfortunately for the girl, the guy was just using her for sex. Again another heartbreak.How are the above scenarios less damaging than the idea of having sex before marriage?
If you love someone and want to be intimate, there is no reason why you should restrain yourself from what is a clear blessing and provision for humanity, (if done correctly). Just as one needs to exercise caution with regards to choosing the right marriage partner, one also needs to exercise caution with regards to whom they choose to engage in sexual activity with. Some may not be ready for sex until after 1 day, perhaps 1 month or maybe a year or even 10 years. The point is that when they are ready, they shouldn't restrict themselves for the wrong reasons.
Based on the above, saying something like there isn't enough love between them because they are unwilling to get married therefore they should not have sex isn't a justified position in my opinion.
You probably don't have daughter or sister and you can't see things clearly...
I don't. I'm guessing you do. How would it make a difference for you if your daughter or sister got married before they had sex? What's the difference in the eyes of a father or brother?
Peace
-
This nimnimak_11 is only a pervert who may not even be a muslim.
be carefull he is only trying to corrupt your minds.
sex is only allowed between married couples, no mater if the perverts who only want to follow their own desires don't like it.
You have to bring forth evidence from the Quran here. This is not Sunni Islam where the boys screw as many women as they want till they are ready to get married and than marry their cousins. Often Muslim men play this game since they can only have sex with Muslim women if they marry them and often financially they are not ready so they go for non Muslim women give them romantic lies and tell them they love them and care about them and hang around there for a while and then take off and marry their cousins. They then are scared someone will do the same with their sisters and daughters so they have strict rules regarding their own girls but see nothing wrong with messing with other women. Societies where men often can even have adultereres affairs and nothing happens but if a women does it than hell breaks lose. Societies where women get all the blame and shame even if she is raped.
We are interested here with what the Quran has to say and not what male dominated tribal societies have to say. This is not Sunni Islam.
Now if we look t the Bible we can see that prophets often had wives and concubines. In the Bible a concubine is a marriage set up by oath only. There is no dowry or financial arrangement. This marraige is known in the Arab world as urfi marriages. A man and woman make on oath to be married but there is no dowry set up and often the parents are not aware. A contract is signed but many times it is not registered by the judicial system. This marriage is usually done because of financial constraints. The Quran does not advice on such marriages because abuse can occur where a man can sometimes deny he is married to her and escapes parental responsibility. But in the end it is a bond established by mutal oath and is considered legitimate. The Quran advices that such relationships should be elevated in to a proper marriage where a dowry or some financial arrangement is set up for the women in case of divorce and the parents should be informed so no problems occurs in the future and the contract should be handed to the women if she asks for it. Abraham married Hagar that way and Solomon and David all had concubines.
Islamic authorities understand concubines as slaves. This is not a Biblical understanding and is based only on hadiths. Slavery is rape and nothing else. The verses about MMA came on the Medina community probably because of the presence of many Jews there where the practice of concubinage was common. This practice may not have been common in Mecca and later Muslim authorities simply wanted to enslave prisoners of war and found it convenient to change MMA's meaning.
Now some may look at MMA as similar to non married couples where even if there is no formal marriage agreement there is still a mutual oath where the couple act as if they are married. The problem here is financial arangement as protection. It is this that the Quran is worried about especially if a pregnancy occurs where the man could simply run away from responsibility denying the child is his. This happened in Egypt when a famous actor's son had a Urfi marriage with a women and when she got pregnant he tore off the contract he had with her and denied he ever married her. After DNA testing he had to acknowledge his reponsibility. This is what the Quan is concerned about, protection and justice for the woman and child.
The Quran prohibits casual sex but couples do not get together for casual sex. This is usually prostitution or one night stands. One night stands of course is not based on an oath between a couple. But boyfriend and girlfriend arrangement is a form of a bond. It is similar in many ways to MMA. The Quran however does not advice such arrangements because of possibility of abuse. All couples have the same arrangement what seperates couples from other couples is legal and financial protection.
Casual sex is prohibited in the Quran but this is not be confused with adultery. Adultery is a betrayal of oath and can be considered a crime. Casual sex is not a breaking of on oath and a betrayal of trust and therefore does not constitute a crime. This could be considered a sin but it is not a punishable sin by a state since a third party is not involved. This talk of bringing shame to the family is Sunni tribal talk. Shame to the family does not constitute a crime. Taking what is righfully someone else right is a crime as adultery is. There are certain things humans can hold other humans accountable for and there are certain things only God can hold a human accountable for like disbeleiving, worshping idols, being miserly and selfish and rude etc.
We must learn to understand the language of the Quran. Everybody is free to do what they want in this life but not to infringe on somebody elses right like stealing, killing, slandering or cheating with somebody else while married to a woman.
In the case of adultery the Quran holds the person responsible if he is married. But the charge can only be brought on the one who is married. Not every sin is a crime. Disbelieving is an unforiveable sin but the Quran gave people the freedom to do so and God will hold them accountable in the hereafter. But what humans can hold other humans accountable for is dependent on infirnging on someone else's right.
In the Bible
Among the Israelites, men commonly acknowledged their concubines, and such women enjoyed the same rights in the house as legitimate wives. The principal difference in the Bible between a wife and a concubine is that wives had dowries, while concubines did not.
The concubine may not have commanded the same respect and inviolability as the wife. The Hebrew word used in the Levitical rules on sexual relations, which is commonly translated as "wife", is distinct from the Hebrew word that means "concubine". (However, on at least one other occasion it is used to refer a woman who is not a wife - specifically, the handmaid of Jacob's wife.) In the Levitical code, sexual intercourse between a man and a wife of a different man was forbidden and punishable by death for both persons involved. The Bible notes several incidents of intercourse between a man and another man's concubine, and none of them result in capital punishment for either party, although the man to whom the concubine belonged was dishonored by such a relationship. For instance, David is portrayed as having been dishonored when his concubines had a sexual relationship with his son Absalom.
Since it was regarded as the highest blessing to have many children, legitimate wives often gave their maids to their husbands to atone, at least in part, if they were barren, as in the cases of Sarah and Hagar, and Rachel and Bilhah. The children of the concubine had equal rights with those of the legitimate wife; for example, King Abimelech was the son of Gideon and his concubine. Later biblical figures such as Gideon, and Solomon had concubines in addition to many childbearing wives. For example, the Books of Kings says that Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.
In Judaism
In Judaism, concubines are referred to by the Hebrew term pilegesh. The term is a non-Hebrew, non-Semitic loanword derived from the Greek word, pallakis, Greek , meaning "a mistress staying in house".
According to the Babylonian Talmud, the difference between a concubine and a full wife was that the latter received a marriage contract (Hebrewketubah) and her marriage (nissu'in) was preceded by a formal betrothal (erusin), neither being the case for a concubine. But, one opinion in the Jerusalem Talmud argues that the concubine should also receive a marriage contract, but without including a clause specifying a divorce settlement.
Certain Jewish thinkers, such as Maimonides, believed that concubines are strictly reserved for kings, and thus that a commoner may not have a concubine; indeed, such thinkers argued that commoners may not engage in any type of sexual relations outside of a marriage. Before Maimonides concluded this, Sunni Muslims officially prohibited mutah (i.e. temporary marriage) relationships; some commentators' suggest that Maimonides changed his view in response to this development, similar to Gershom ben Judah's ban on polygamy being made after Christians had prohibited it.
Maimonides was not the first Jewish thinker to criticise concubinage; for example, it is severely condemned in Leviticus Rabbah. Other Jewish thinkers, such as Nahmanides, Samuel ben Uri Shraga Phoebus, and Jacob Emden, strongly object to the idea that concubines should be forbidden.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concubinage
-
so a woman / man can have like many boy/girlfriends before they get married and they can have sex with all of them, does this sound Quranic to you, to me does not. maybe she had 20 boyfriends and had sex with all and finally married this one guy. I personally wouldn't want to be that one. you can't sugarcoat and make it sound Quranic to me. no.
-
I had lots of friends who did premarital sex. Most girls regret it and prefer long term relationship than a short relationship. But as a man, of course I prefer to sleep with any girl I saw, but law prevent me from it. Listen to the girl, instictly they wanted a long term relationship with a husband who loved them forever, not a short term relationship which is hurt them. You can have a premarital sex if you please, but don't take the quran for justification.
-
Salaam Bigmo,
You came up with some really good points there. It was very interesting to read. Gave me new ideas to think and meditate upon. I knew about concubines in the Bible, but I never thought about it this way. Thank you.
God bless you
-
Salam Bigmo
I like your reply, very well said. With regards to what is a legal bond or not is many times forgotten. Many are formed to believe that "marriage" can only be one way (or rather only one type of ritual).
A twelve year old boy can have the same feelings of love and committment that a 22 year old boy has. Actually pre-puberty love is purer because he is not thinking with the lower part of his anatomy......... I am not saying a 12 year old should be allowed to marry, but I am saying he should have the right to fall in love and learn about love. So eventually when he is "legit" to actually marry (ready to become a father) he can distinguish from true love and imaginary love. He will be able to become a committed father.I am a father of both boys and girls. I will not stop my children from falling in love and have boyfriends/girlfriends. I will however put down the same rules as for grown-up "marriages". My boys must understand that they are the providers and they must follow the rules. If they cheat on their girlfriend I will be the one that brings out the whip. I will teach my girls that they must make sure they have picked a boy that will become good fathers. If they cheat I will be the one that brings out the whip. All my children must understand that if they do fall in love there must also be committment. They must face the obligations that goes with the package of love. Of course they will do many mistakes and all I can do is pray they are careful with the sex part. But I need to let them make these mistakes because I as a parent cannot teach them what or how love feels, this they must experience themselves. Boys need to learn to respect girls and girls need to learn how to stay away from boys who do not respect them. Hopefully by the time they are grown up they have already done all the mistakes that love-learners do and when they are ready to seriously committ to another person it will last for life.
The Quran however does not advice such arrangements because of possibility of abuse. All couples have the same arrangement what seperates couples from other couples is legal and financial protection
So make a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship just as binding as a marriage. It is not a question of how the Quran should be interpreted but how to define marriage.
I do not agree with the title of this topic, but I do agree that "marriage" is misquoted and riddled with dogmatic rituals and conceptions
-
Salam Bigmo
So make a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship just as binding as a marriage. It is not a question of how the Quran should be interpreted but how to define marriage.
But isn't Marriage a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship, but with consequenses if one doesn't fulfill their obligations - then the law can take some action ?
-\
peace
-
Salam Bigmo
I like your reply, very well said. With regards to what is a legal bond or not is many times forgotten. Many are formed to believe that "marriage" can only be one way (or rather only one type of ritual).
A twelve year old boy can have the same feelings of love and committment that a 22 year old boy has. Actually pre-puberty love is purer because he is not thinking with the lower part of his anatomy......... I am not saying a 12 year old should be allowed to marry, but I am saying he should have the right to fall in love and learn about love. So eventually when he is "legit" to actually marry (ready to become a father) he can distinguish from true love and imaginary love. He will be able to become a committed father.I am a father of both boys and girls. I will not stop my children from falling in love and have boyfriends/girlfriends. I will however put down the same rules as for grown-up "marriages". My boys must understand that they are the providers and they must follow the rules. If they cheat on their girlfriend I will be the one that brings out the whip. I will teach my girls that they must make sure they have picked a boy that will become good fathers. If they cheat I will be the one that brings out the whip. All my children must understand that if they do fall in love there must also be committment. They must face the obligations that goes with the package of love. Of course they will do many mistakes and all I can do is pray they are careful with the sex part. But I need to let them make these mistakes because I as a parent cannot teach them what or how love feels, this they must experience themselves. Boys need to learn to respect girls and girls need to learn how to stay away from boys who do not respect them. Hopefully by the time they are grown up they have already done all the mistakes that love-learners do and when they are ready to seriously committ to another person it will last for life.
So make a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship just as binding as a marriage. It is not a question of how the Quran should be interpreted but how to define marriage.
I do not agree with the title of this topic, but I do agree that "marriage" is misquoted and riddled with dogmatic rituals and conceptions
Hmm, I agree that marriage is seen in a ceremonial and ritual type way rather than for its actual purpose - an intentional commitment between two people. However, the boyfriend and girlfriend relationship, for myself personally - and for others if they sought my advice - would stay away from this. It is entering the terriority of sexual relations outside of the boundary of marriage. I think young people are going to start thinking about that if they are in a relationship and if its a happy relationship they could start justifying that its ok. It is possible if two people are in love and young that they stay friends and/or make some type of pledge almost. I don't know, this could be adapted, but I don't see why people can't think outside the box a little as long as its following the spirit and principles of the Quran and not veering into a different territory. We are surrounded by images and ideas that people were not in the past, it seems that people buy into a lot. But it is business at the end of the day, even things like Valentines Day, Christmas etc, these things, although having their own value, are still sold to us and we buy into it if we want.
-
It is entering the terriority of sexual relations outside of the boundary of marriage
Salam sister
Depends on your interpretation of what boyfriend/girlfriend. Labels mean different things to different people and I do not think we will ever be able to agree to "Yes, sex is illegal if the relationship falls into this category and it is legal when it is in that category"
I used the example of sambo a million times on this forum. Here in Sweden there is something called "sambo". They hold the same lawful status as a marriage (with minute differences with regards to inheritance). What is sambo? Two people in a sexual relationship that live under the same roof. The whole country considers a sambo to be the same as a husband/wife..........but in another country they would be boyfriend/girlfriend, in others they would be fornicators.See what I mean? What we call the relationship is completely irrelevant. Instead we need to focus on the intention of the couple. Are they having sex because they love eachother and want to start a family or are they only in it for the pleasure?
Age is also irrelevant. To me a young person is just as capable of following the guidelines of committment and loyalty than an old person......The only difference between ages is that the older you get the less fish swim in the sea & yes it is sad but true ........A teenage boy/girl can feel they have met their soulmate. I have known kids that are totally in love with eachother and they truly believe that they will never love anyone as much as they love whatever boy or girl has caught their attention. One of my daughters (7 yrs old) has already decided she is going to marry Samuel, a boy two years younger than her. She told me she is biding her time because she doesnt want to marry him until he has learned to "behave".....I dont know what she meant by that...... Allah sees the loyalty and pureness of her heart eventhough her love is completely innocent and naive and even if their relationship would not last longer than a lunchbreak it is still in the best of intentions. Should we stop them because they could possible not know what love is about? To me that sounds like a sunni scholar telling me I am not knowledgable enough to understand Islam, it would be better for me to let him decide what I should believe in.....
When we read the Quran we find verses that say to us we must try our hardest to understand. If we did not understand or did something wrong but our intentions were good we are forgiven by Allah. Why should we stop people from following what they think is right? Let people fall in love and if it doesnt work out, then let them learn from their mistakes. Lets just pray that they have learned enough by the time their biological clock starts ticking.....
We are not to forbid young people to enjoy and learn about sex. What we do however need is to give them proper guidance, their age does not rectify not having to follow rules. The committment must be there regardless of age, the true intent must be there regardless of age and the loyalty must be there regardless of what "category" the relationship falls into.So illegal sex to me is all the type of sex that does not include committment, true intentions and loyalty. It has nothing to do with age nor label.
-
Cheers folks!
So illegal sex to me is all the type of sex that does not include committment, true intentions and loyalty. It has nothing to do with age nor label.
Yes, I tend to agree, in theory, but people will foolishly think they have committment, true intentions and loyalty even when they don't. How mature are you actually at the age of 13?
I think young people are going to start thinking about that if they are in a relationship and if its a happy relationship they could start justifying that its ok.
Yes, because they lack the experience and knowledge about themselves. Also, "happy" might be very short lived.
But isn't Marriage a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship, but with consequences if one doesn't fulfill their obligations - then the law can take some action ?
Yes. What is the purpose of marriage anyway, and why is sex part of that topic? Must be a reason for that.
People are products of their environment and society. In that which is commonly called the "western society" (a label that I hate), we have a strong tendency to idolize the physical body and sexual expression. Young people pick this up, are formed by this, and take casual sexual relationships as totally normal, beginning at whatever age people reach puberty. Everything is geared towards sex in a very artificial and exaggerated way. (At the same time, it is not like what people in "eastern" societies think. I don't agree with their prejudice and ignorance about "western" society either.)
This societal push from media towards casual, sexual expression bolsters the culture of casual, short-term bf/gf relationships, which in reality do NOT involve any special level of commitment or responsibility. I seriously doubt that these relationships between often immature people have any benefit on the individuals or society, except that the people get experienced in sex and might perhaps develop some skill at it.
I tend to see casual/free sex like alcohol... it may be pleasant, fun, easy... but what is the balance of benefits vs harm in it? Just like many people refuse to acknowledge the harms of alcohol (e.g. behavioral change and it's consequences, and physical consequences..), they also refuse to acknowledge the harms of casual sex. These include e.g. emotional wounds (people are too emotionally numb to sense the effect that casual sex has has on you... hence it is mostly rejected as nonsense), single parent childhood (very bad for the children), etc ... so casual sex has no real benefits as such... it's just like a half-built in addiction that is strongly encouraged by society.
We can learn from everything, including drug-abuse or accidents... but this doesn't make it good or wise to engage in.
Just my two cents,
Peace y'all -
In all societies, marriage shapes the rights and obligations of parenthood. Among us humans, the scholars report, marriage is not primarily a license to have sex. Nor is it primarily a license to receive benefits or social recognition. It is primarily a license to have children.
In this sense, marriage is a gift that society bestows on its next generation. Marriage (and only marriage) unites the three core dimensions of parenthood -- biological, social and legal -- into one pro-child form the married couple. Marriage says to a child The man and the woman whose sexual union made you will also be there to love and raise you. Marriage says to society as a whole For every child born, there is a recognized mother and a father, accountable to the child and to each other.
Of course a relationship where people want to have and raise children, there must be commitments to safeguard the bringing up of the children , you don't want one party to move on without any regard to the responsibilities regarding the financial and other needs, so marriage laws safe guard the responsibilites of children, whilest in a girl freind boy friend relationship there are no such laws, mind in some countries there are no laws regarding marriages neither, On the other hand calling it by what ever name is okay as long as the laws are there to safeguard the rights of the children from such relationships, and of course of each other.
peace -
Yes, I tend to agree, in theory, but people will foolishly think they have committment, true intentions and loyalty even when they don't. How mature are you actually at the age of 13?
Salam Zulf
Allah only exists in theory, there is no hard evidence that He exists and we still believe in Him. Same with believing in the humanity of people, the kindness and love that all people theoratically possess. They are there in theory only, are we foolishly sticking to our beliefs? Is the reason to not believe because we cannot see it or find evidence for it?
It is all about what we choose to believe in. If a thirteen year old truly loves someone they truly believe it. If a person is "mature" enough has nothing to do with how they feel or believe. Just like us, we truly believe Allah exists but in His eyes we have absolutely no idea what we are talking about. How could we ever think that we can understand His creation? Is he stopping us because compared to Him we are immature? No, instead He is promoting our free thinking, our struggle to understand better. Hopefully when it is time to pass we have understood a little. The same is for love, hopefully when the time comes to start a family with babies and such we are "mature" enough to choose a partner wisely. Therefore we should not hinder the child from having this emotion called love because that will only stump him/her in the process of learning about it and what to look for. I sincerely hope my daughters and sons will be dumped and heartbroken by who they believe is the right man/woman in their life before they are mature enough to start a family........You gotta kiss a lot of frogs before you find your prince ....................Oh my God, that was the cheeziest thing I said in a long time...........
What is the fundamental reasons for Allah to put restraints on our sex life? Forget about health issues and breaking peoples hearts.....The main reason, the only reason that really counts is when we have sex (that includes adultery) 1)may result in an orphan 2)Our interest in sex may supersede our interest in Allah....... Number 2 is another issue so lets focus on number 1.
Who are to blame if two young people are not careful and happen to produce an orphan? Us.......we, the parents are to blame for not teaching our children about relationships and the committments and support that are included in sex. Does it work to forbid, ban and shun our childrens emotions? No.........Does it work to have an open dialouge and support them and teach them? Well.......it works better forbidding but not perfect.
The rest.......we can only pray they will be careful.....
-
Allah only exists in theory, there is no hard evidence that He exists and we still believe in Him. Same with believing in the humanity of people, the kindness and love that all people theoratically possess. They are there in theory only, are we foolishly sticking to our beliefs? Is the reason to not believe because we cannot see it or find evidence for it?
I'm not a big fan of blind faith though
It is all about what we choose to believe in. If a thirteen year old truly loves someone they truly believe it. If a person is "mature" enough has nothing to do with how they feel or believe. Just like us, we truly believe Allah exists but in His eyes we have absolutely no idea what we are talking about. How could we ever think that we can understand His creation? Is he stopping us because compared to Him we are immature? No, instead He is promoting our free thinking, our struggle to understand better. Hopefully when it is time to pass we have understood a little. The same is for love, hopefully when the time comes to start a family with babies and such we are "mature" enough to choose a partner wisely. Therefore we should not hinder the child from having this emotion called love because that will only stump him/her in the process of learning about it and what to look for. I sincerely hope my daughters and sons will be dumped and heartbroken by who they believe is the right man/woman in their life before they are mature enough to start a family........You gotta kiss a lot of frogs before you find your prince )....................Oh my God, that was the cheeziest thing I said in a long time...........
D
What is the fundamental reasons for Allah to put restraints on our sex life? Forget about health issues and breaking peoples hearts.....The main reason, the only reason that really counts is when we have sex (that includes adultery) 1)may result in an orphan 2)Our interest in sex may supersede our interest in Allah....... Number 2 is another issue so lets focus on number 1.
True. There should be some practical reasons if we want to convince other people. Orphans, or children with single parents, is not a good thing for one's emotional development.
Who are to blame if two young people are not careful and happen to produce an orphan? Us.......we, the parents are to blame for not teaching our children about relationships and the committments and support that are included in sex. Does it work to forbid, ban and shun our childrens emotions? No.........Does it work to have an open dialouge and support them and teach them? Well.......it works better forbidding but not perfect.
This is my point. The biological urges are very strong... and when you reach a certain level, it is very difficult indeed to restrain oneself, simply due to biology. The less mature and experienced in life you are, the easier you may fall "victim" to the bodily urges while not being able to foresee possible consequences.
I also believe in open dialogs. Taboos and similar restrictions result in negative behaviour and never serve their intended purposes.
There is a difference between love and sex. There is actually no need to have sex in order to go through experiences of love and broken hearts. Our society is focused purely on sex and appearance, but not on healthy inter-personal relationships, so we should realize this difference between sex and love. Sometimes it seems people are propagating sex, while disregarding the love and relationship. What is the thing that people will learn from and grow from? Not sex. Sex is a skill, but it is not the foundation of anything. Sex won't teach you about relationships at all. It simply won't. Insisting on sex in the name of developing relationship skills is just an excuse, to have sex. One can have regular sex, while being more or less emotionally incompetent, or at least immature and a child in the mind.
The problem is that people think of sex as the main thing. People fail to see that sex is a level of relationship you reach once you already have a foundation of commitment. It doesn't start with sex. It starts with commitment and care. Sex comes after that. But this is not how society teach it. Society get more and more depleted of family values. The family is not just an archaic constellation that is outdated and going out of fashion. The family as structure provides so much strength and support... and alone is actually not strong. Society is pushing towards individualism in an unhealthy way, that makes us weak, alone and vulnerable to the "norms" propagated by those who propagate. We can be individualists in the context of a family structure. We don't have to choose. We can have both.
Random and casual sex, which is the style that is propagated and in fashion, is a thing of a society full of separated individuals. There is no strength in it, and it is called "free" just to give it credibility. "Freedom" is often used in the propagation of things that have nothing to do with real and actual freedom.
Peace!