Defenition of marriage suggests sex before marriage permitted?!
-
Peace
{quote}
"What I understood from your post that Zina applies only to married women. Unmarried women can "enjoy" as much as possible ,this is not Zina. Did I get it correctly ?
Regards {quote}.{quote}As long as the women are monogamous, yes.}.{Therefore, az-zina is not about "pre-marital" sex but only about polyandry(or "adultery" from the woman's side). {quote}.
How interesting , so as long as a woman kept to the same male partner , an unmarried woman can go on having sex ad infinitum without getting married ? And Zina is all about Polyandry is it ?
If the standard of 'Proof' for Zina is that of four eye-witnesses , it is reasonable to conclude that Zina = Public Sex , unless of course Peeping ( spying ) into people's bedroom is an allowed practice . Since when is 'polyandry' means adultery from a woman side ? Please give us definition of polyandry and how did you arrive at Zina means that .
Peace
almarh0m
-
Peace Phil
The thing is would a married believer marry another?
Peace nimnimak_11.
It depends on what you mean by "believer".
The term "believer" as used in Q2221 is the antonym to "mushrik".
For a moment, take off the religious lens from your perspective and try to rationalize the meaning of these words in the context of marriage.
I bet it's scary to imagine that once you are married, then you are "mushrik". Again, that depends on what you mean by "mushrik".
Also wouldn't a disbelieving women invite to the fire?
My understanding of a believer is someone who believes in morals and upholds them. Thus if my partner did not uphold morals she would probably be unfaithful, unreasonable and invite me to a lot of grief (hell)
What do you think?
Though you may find on certain occasions the above statement to hold some truth, but in the context of the verse, it is irrelevant.
If you carefully examine the verse, the statement clearly says that marrying "mushrik" i.e those with partner invites to the "fire". "Fire" as you have noted in your reply has nothing to do with the Hell as in the afterlife, but rather the unpleasant situation in the marriage life.
Consider this
As per your understanding, does it inviting to "fire" to marry a "believing wife"?
Cheers
-
I mean what about the married man who is commiting adultery with the married woman?
That will also be az-zina because the woman is married. I wrote
... for az-zina to occur, az-zaani can be any man, "married" or not, but the az-zaaniya must be a "married" woman
-
Peace Fahad,
I completely disagree with your definition of zina according to the qur'aan.
But you won't want to tell us why? Not even a single comment about my arguments and evidences?
Its meaning has been discussed on this forum AD NAUSEUM and no use repeating it here. Everyone is encouraged to use the search function to look up the past discussions on the meaning of zina according to the qur'aan.
I have read some of the past discussion already and I don't see how they would disprove my arguments. Can you please provide me a link to the exact post that would do so?
I will just give a summary without details in this post. For the details and the qur'aanic references, please use the search function.
Nice. So you will make claims but will not provide evidence for them? And you want US to go and find the evidences for YOUR claims?
How interesting ,
Yeah.
so as long as a woman kept to the same male partner , an unmarried woman can go on having sex ad infinitum without getting married ?
What marriage are you talking about? You haven't yet commented on my understanding of marriage.
And Zina is all about Polyandry is it ?
Yes I think. You don't want to address my arguments about it?
Zina according to the qur'aan is PORNOGRAPHY or PUBLIC SEX. The zaani or zaaniat both could be married or unmarried. Even a legally married husband and wife will be committing zina if they have sex with each other in public.
There is NO earthly punishment for adultery or fornication performed in private without any witnesses. This does not mean that adultery or fornication is allowed. Adultery and fornication come under FAWAAHISH and we are prohibited to even come near it. Setting up partners is the biggest sin one can commit but there is no earthly punishment for it. That does not mean setting up partners is allowed.
If the standard of 'Proof' for Zina is that of four eye-witnesses , it is reasonable to conclude that Zina = Public Sex , ...
That is incorrect. The four witnesses are necessary only when the accuser is someone other than the husband(24/4). When the husband accuses the wife, the other witnesses are not necessary(24/6). Then is is up to the wife to accept or reject the accusation of zina even without any other witnesses. Which disproves zina=public sex. That was easy, no?
Since when is 'polyandry' means adultery from a woman side?
That depends on my understanding of marriage which you haven't commented on yet.
Please give us definition of polyandry and how did you arrive at Zina means that .
Polyandry is a woman having multiple sexual partners. I have already explained how I arrived at the understanding of zina. You have yet to comment on that.
-
That depends on my understanding of marriage which you haven't commented on yet.
Polyandry is a woman having multiple sexual partners. I have already explained how I arrived at the understanding of zina. You have yet to comment on that.
Dictionaries tend to say that polyandry is a wife having more than one husband. Are you defining sex as being marriage?
-
Dictionaries tend to say that polyandry is a wife having more than one husband. Are you defining sex as being marriage?
And a husband is a sexual partner. But whether "husband" or "boyfriend", whatever, the Quran is against multiple sexual partners for women. That is what, at least I, am referring to as polyandry.
I have shared my understanding that a couple can have a relationship with or without a marriage contract and still be regarded as husband-wife, though the Quran recommends that they have it with the contract and witnesses. At least that's how it appears to me. I know there can be much room for improvement in my understanding. I'll appreciate feedback.
-
My impression is that sex and marriage are the same thing. This would suggest that adultery is divorce and remarriage rolled into one.
The area I would disagree with you is that just because the Quran doesn't say that adultery works both ways, doesn't mean it isn't true. After all - the bits of the Quran that say Murder is wrong do not specifically mention female murderers. Doesn't mean that women are allowed to commit murder. Unless we have a very good reason to think otherwise, we should assume the rules are the same for men and women.
-
Peace Fahad
And a husband is a sexual partner. But whether "husband" or "boyfriend", whatever, the Quran is against multiple sexual partners for women. That is what, at least I, am referring to as polyandry.
I have shared my understanding that a couple can have a relationship with or without a marriage contract and still be regarded as husband-wife, though the Quran recommends that they have it with the contract and witnesses. At least that's how it appears to me. I know there can be much room for improvement in my understanding. I'll appreciate feedback.
Are you sure The Qur'an is only against multiple sexual partners for women but not for men ? Polyandry is the opposite of polygamy is it not or the equivalent of it if practised by women . If polyandry is simply women having multiple sex partners , why don't we refer female prostitutes as polyandrysts instead ?
I concur with your understanding that a couple can have a marriage-like relationship without getting married , this is everyday reality that we cannot deny especially if one lives in the West . Yes a couple who chose to have this kind of relationship used to be referred to as 'common law wife/husband' , however , they did not have the same legal recognition as legally married couples and the rights of their offsrings is limited especially when it comes to inheritance . The Qur'an recommends that marriage should be above board hence all the requirements , such as consent , dowry , witnesses etc .
Peace
almarh0m
-
I think Fahad's understanding of what is meant by "zina" is wrong, unless we take that 4.5 and 4.25 enjoins marrying married women, or that we take 24.23 to mean that we may not slander married women, but that we can slander unmarried women. The meaning to be derived from such an understanding of what is meant by zina would be surprising indeed in the light of 4.26, the aya which closes the zina ayas, that is
Women impure ar for men impure,
and men impure for women impure,
and women of purity
are for men of purity
and men of purity
are for women of purity ,
Those are not affected
by what people say
For them there is forgiveness
and a provision honourable.Salaam
-
Peace Phil
It depends on what you mean by "believer".
The term "believer" as used in Q2221 is the antonym to "mushrik".
For a moment, take off the religious lens from your perspective and try to rationalize the meaning of these words in the context of marriage.
I always try and view things without the religious lens and try and conclude with my heart, reason and logic. I hold the view that if the Quran says something and it goes against all of those three God given faculties, then i would not uphold it. This is because the chance of me misunderstanding or misinterpreting the Quran is more likely then misunderstanding those three faculties (IMO). Therefore when i am called to account (metaphorically) i think i would be faulted if i say something like "but that's what i thought was written in the scripture" when my interpretation of the scripture went against those faculties.
If you carefully examine the verse, the statement clearly says that marrying "mushrik" i.e those with partner invites to the "fire". "Fire" as you have noted in your reply has nothing to do with the Hell as in the afterlife, but rather the unpleasant situation in the marriage life.
My arabic knowledge is poor. But my doubt to your understanding is the verse 221. Do not marry unbelieving women (idolaters), until they believe...
In this context, would it be acceptable to understand "untill they believe" as untill they become single?Consider this
As per your understanding, does it inviting to "fire" to marry a "believing wife"?
CheersDo you mean marrying a believer who is already married? If so then i 100% think so. But wouldn't that make them unbelievers at that time hence your not marrying a believing women or you yourself are not a believer for carrying out such an act?
Can you provide an example of a believer attempting to marry an already married believer?
What problem do you see with the understanding that marrying a non-believer invites to the fire?
peace peace
-
My impression is that sex and marriage are the same thing.
Hmmm. Maybe. In a way.
This would suggest that adultery is divorce and remarriage rolled into one.
"Remarriage" without the divorce and the waiting period.
The area I would disagree with you is that just because the Quran doesn't say that adultery works both ways, doesn't mean it isn't true. After all - the bits of the Quran that say Murder is wrong do not specifically mention female murderers. Doesn't mean that women are allowed to commit murder. Unless we have a very good reason to think otherwise, we should assume the rules are the same for men and women.
I don't think that logic will work. You can bring the verses about murder here and compare them with the verses about zina.
-
Peace Fahad
Are you sure The Qur'an is only against multiple sexual partners for women but not for men ?
Yes.
Polyandry is the opposite of polygamy is it not or the equivalent of it if practised by women .
Yes. Polygamy for men is polygyny. Polygamy for women is polyandry.
If polyandry is simply women having multiple sex partners , why don't we refer female prostitutes as polyandrysts instead ?
"Az-zina", "polyandry" and "prostitution" refer to the same thing.
I concur with your understanding that a couple can have a marriage-like relationship without getting married , this is everyday reality that we cannot deny especially if one lives in the West . Yes a couple who chose to have this kind of relationship used to be referred to as 'common law wife/husband' , however , they did not have the same legal recognition as legally married couples and the rights of their offsrings is limited especially when it comes to inheritance . The Qur'an recommends that marriage should be above board hence all the requirements , such as consent , dowry , witnesses etc .
Yes I think so.
Thanks.
-
I think Fahad's understanding of what is meant by "zina" is wrong, unless we take that 4.5 and 4.25 enjoins marrying married women,...
What about 4/5?
Al-muhsinaat in 4/25 are from the 'milk al-ayman'(or "MMA" category I believe. Al-muhsinaat allowed for momineen are only from the milk-al-ayman category(4/24).
... or that we take 24.23 to mean that we may not slander married women, but that we can slander unmarried women.
What will the "slander" mean for an unmarried woman?
The meaning to be derived from such an understanding of what is meant by zina would be surprising indeed in the light of 4.26, the aya which closes the zina ayas, that is
Women impure ar for men impure,
and men impure for women impure,
and women of purity
are for men of purity
and men of purity
are for women of purity ,
Those are not affected
by what people say
For them there is forgiveness
and a provision honourable.I am sorry? How?
-
Peace,
az-zaani can be any man, "married" or not, but the az-zaaniya must be a "married" woman
Qur'an cannot contradict therefore in context, who is being addressed only the married?
1730-36
(٠ (١ (٢ (٣ (٤ (٥ (٦
-
What about 4/5?
Al-muhsinaat in 4/25 are from the 'milk al-ayman'(or "MMA" category I believe. Al-muhsinaat allowed for momineen are only from the milk-al-ayman category(4/24).
What will the "slander" mean for an unmarried woman?
I am sorry? How?
Sorry, I misprinted, I meant 5.5.
Salaam
-
In 1730-36 ?
Yes 1730-36 in context and also...
.
Quran cannot contradict; in context for all the above who are the verses pertaining to, only the married?