How sex before Marriage is not haram (prohibited) according to the Quran
-
To marry or have sex with a married woman is not allowed excep she becomes a slave. Two words can be used for a thing.
I'm not sure what you mean. Are you suggesting that MMA has two meanings?
-
Take your time to study Q3350-52. A woman that offered herself is not MMA. Prophet should not marry anymore except MMA.
That which is decreed for the prophet in this case is different to us. He has rights that we don't in this case. We cannot relate those verses to us.
-
Read the verses before 2233. It refers to divorced mothers.
I had done.
From 2226 onwards all verses are linked in a way to marriage. 2226 is at first unclear whether it's talking of marriage but because the next verse refers to the previous verse with the word talagh, it makes it clear that it is related. From there on all other verses upto 2233 have some clear implication of marriage. But 2333 has no signs of it being a marital relationship. It emphasises all mothers and all fathers "no mother shall be harmed....." and deliberately does not use the word talagh when talking of seperation.I know that you said that it is sandwiched between verses which talk of marriage but two things i want to point out
- 2233 could have used divorce mothers in place of just mothers but it did not do this for a reason.
- There are other exmaples of unrelated verses sandwiched in a topic. Look at 2238-239. The verses suddenly stop talking of marriage related issues and spends 2 verses talking of Salat before returning again to marriage related issues.
So the fact that it's sandwiched in marriage related verses does not make it exclusive to marriages. The words of 2333 IMO are clear on talking of all mothers and all fathers. Perhaps this could be that it is considering that the divorce has already happened and thus they are no longer husband or wife but again if anyone gets pregnant or anyone becomes a father wether within or outside a marriage that verse 2233 will surely apply to them.
-
Whatever the circumstances in this verse, it doesn't mean that sex (which lead to the birth of a child) is allowed outside marriage. It could be rape or a one night stand. So other verses need to be taken into account.
In regards to 2238-239, maybe the definition of salat in these verses needs to be revised.
-
235 And they keep covered their private parts.
236 Except around their spouses (azwaaj), or those who are maintained by their oaths (ma malakat aymanukum), they are free from blame.
237 But whoever seeks anything beyond this, then these are the transgressors.From these verses, it is clear that none should have access to the private parts except the following two categories Spouses (Azwaaj) and those who are committed to you by oaths (ma malakat aymanukum) Thus SO FAR sex can only be done with those two categories of people.
That's only one kind of person. Marriage is an oath.
As to the morality of casual sex, it is never harmless
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AUSrmWlGJs
-
Whatever the circumstances in this verse, it doesn't mean that sex (which lead to the birth of a child) is allowed outside marriage. It could be rape or a one night stand. So other verses need to be taken into account.
In regards to 2238-239, maybe the definition of salat in these verses needs to be revised.
Are you suggesting that 2238-239 may possibly be related to marriage? Like the word salat to mean bond like a marriage bond?
About your point about rape or a one night stand. What happens if a husband rapes his wife? In all cases the father is responsible for the provisions. A father who has commited the crime of rape whether within or outside marriage will most likely not have the character to take such responsibility. Equally one night stands. AQ is not likely to appeal to those who uphold irresponsible one night stands. -
Are you suggesting that 2238-239 may possibly be related to marriage? Like the word salat to mean bond like a marriage bond?
About your point about rape or a one night stand. What happens if a husband rapes his wife? In all cases the father is responsible for the provisions. A father who has commited the crime of rape whether within or outside marriage will most likely not have the character to take such responsibility. Equally one night stands. AQ is not likely to appeal to those who uphold irresponsible one night stands.I'm not sure about what the 2 verses mean just yet but salat can mean different things so it could mean something in relation to marriage.
That's what I meant. The father is always responsible for the child no matter how the child was conceived whether its within marriage, rape or a one night stand. But of course, like you said, those who are irresponsible or immoral to have a one night stand or rape might not follow the Quran, thus refuse to take responsibility.
The advantage of marriage is that the woman and child are protected and the man will be held equally responsible if a woman gets pregnant.
-
That's only one kind of person. Marriage is an oath.
As to the morality of casual sex, it is never harmless
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AUSrmWlGJs
How can they be the same when MMA are part of the group that are permitted for marriage? Once you marry them they are no longer MMA.
Thank you for the video. We should keep these things in mind. -
I'm not sure about what the 2 verses mean just yet but salat can mean different things so it could mean something in relation to marriage.
That's what I meant. The father is always responsible for the child no matter how the child was conceived whether its within marriage, rape or a one night stand. But of course, like you said, those who are irresponsible or immoral to have a one night stand or rape might not follow the Quran, thus refuse to take responsibility.
The advantage of marriage is that the woman and child are protected and the man will be held equally responsible if a woman gets pregnant.
There is clear advantages to a relationship which has become a marriage but how is this advantage of marriage which you point to related to 2233? On the part about the fathers, it does not go beyond talking about him being responsible for provisions of the child. It could be that the father of a relationship outside of a marriage is a much better father and takes much responsibility then another father who is in a marriage.
Marriage as far as i know, does not bring an advantage to this.
-
There is clear advantages to a relationship which has become a marriage but how is this advantage of marriage which you point to related to 2233? On the part about the fathers, it does not go beyond talking about him being responsible for provisions of the child. It could be that the father of a relationship outside of a marriage is a much better father and takes much responsibility then another father who is in a marriage.
Marriage as far as i know, does not bring an advantage to this.
I meant if there was a legal contract between them or at least they are known to the public as a couple, then the father can't flee from his responsibilities. You might think this won't happen but it does and single mothers are left to take care of their child on their own with no financial help from the father.
-
I meant if there was a legal contract between them or at least they are known to the public as a couple, then the father can't flee from his responsibilities. You might think this won't happen but it does and single mothers are left to take care of their child on their own with no financial help from the father.
well put bravo
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=13800.0
Noah tried to help the then poor ladies but now the law of the land, in the west anyway, does help greatly.
peace
-
Peace all
peaceThe purpose of this article is to argue against the widely accepted belief that the Quran prohibits sex before marriage. I intend to do this by using the Quran to justify a case of pre-marital sex where it is acceptable in the light of the Quran.
I have had a similar view for a while now. From my perception, the Quran advises against casual sex but not against premarital sex. One does not share a bond with a one night stand, it is just sex. However, a gf and bf are committed to each other by oath. They have developed a bond and care about each other deeply. Is a gf or bf not whom your right hand possesses?
-
Hi, nimnimak!
A very interesting thread, i must say.
If you've made up your mind about this--maybe the only thing left to do is ... practice? Because i can't help but notice so many could be's in this thread. So why not just let it be? Or at least, maybe steal other ppl's experiences for more insights? Maybe friends, relatives who've been there done that. Just maybe...
Also, anyone noticed the youngest age we've known yet of two human beings having sex (by their own will)? Or youngest mothers to give birth ever?
What i mean is, what is/are the boundary/ies for sex then, if not marriage--age? biology? psychology/emotion? self-control? economy? supply/availability? An oath? Oral or written? And how binding is this oath? One-to-one relationship only, or something more than that? (if there's any limit, where in AQ do we have that reMMA?)
I'm in for good discussions )
-
Looks like John Edwards and wife are split
Edwards Admits Fathering Love Child, Reportedly Separates From Wife
Former presidential candidate John Edwards has admitted fathering his former campaign videographer's child.
Former Sen. John Edwards arrives with his wife Elizabeth for the late Sen. Edward Kennedy's memorial service in Boston Aug. 28, 2009. (AP Photo)
Former presidential candidate John Edwards has admitted fathering his former campaign videographer's child.In a statement released to NBC News, Edwards said, "I am Quinn?s father. ... It was wrong for me ever to deny she was my daughter and hopefully one day, when she understands, she will forgive me."
Friends of the family said that Edwards and wife, Elizabeth, have separated, NBC reported.
The admission comes after months of denials from Edwards that he fathered former mistress Rielle Hunter's daughter, Frances Quinn. The revelation also comes a week before his former campaign aide, Andrew Young, is set to appear in an ABC News interview saying he posed as the father when the scandal first broke as a favor to Edwards.
The two-time presidential candidate also admitted to providing financial support to the child and said in the statement that he has "reached an agreement with her mother to continue providing support in the future."
"To all those I have disappointed and hurt these words will never be enough, but I am truly sorry," Edwards said.
Young's interview is scheduled to air on ABC next Friday, but may be pushed forward.
Previous reports have claimed that a secret DNA test proved Edwards' paternity to the child.
The test was taken after Hunter tried to get financial help from Edwards for Frances.
Edwards admitted in August 2008 to an affair with Hunter that he says ended in 2006. That year, Edwards' political action committee paid Hunter's video production firm $100,000 for work. Then the committee paid another $14,086 on April 1, 2007.
A federal grand jury last year investigated whether Edwards broke campaign finance law by paying "hush" money to Hunter and Young over the affair.
http//www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/21/report-john-edwards-set-admit-paternity-love-child/
Thats what happens elektro
-
Peace nimnimak,
Let us look at it like this
The post basically was meant to prove a point, which is non prohibition of premarital sex by quran and the argument essentially was based on the understanding that MMA are among the group we can have sex with yet they are not our spouse/wives.Ref 424But if we understand MMA to mean slaves, the argument for premarital sex is arrested.
Now,an argument against MMA = those possessed by your oath/those you have bond with is that, In 3350-52, the merciful lord mentioned woman that offered herself to the prophet.This woman offered herself, a bond, yet not label as MMA, still and more importantly,in the same verse the prophet was told not to mary any more except MMA. This to me is proving that MMA is not = those you have a bond with.Note, I am not unaware of the fact that the provision therein was meant for the prophet alone.
Meanwhile, with the understanding that MMA means slaves, the interpretation for 424 is this ..and not allowed are muhsanat except that they become your slaves, in which case, their status as married becomes null and void.
You have argued that in 2221, a different label was used for slaves, you see, language is our invention,and the lord spoke to us in that language,In any human language, we have words/labels representing a thing and sometimes,a word/label represent more than a thing.Infact, this is the basis of ambiguity in our languages.
Therefore, the fact that a different label was used for slaves is not enough to conclude that MMA can't be taken to mean slaves.THINK ABOUT IT.
ZUBAIRUS
-
Peace nimnimak,
Let us look at it like this
The post basically was meant to prove a point, which is non prohibition of premarital sex by quran and the argument essentially was based on the understanding that MMA are among the group we can have sex with yet they are not our spouse/wives.Ref 424But if we understand MMA to mean slaves, the argument for premarital sex is arrested.
Now,an argument against MMA = those possessed by your oath/those you have bond with is that, In 3350-52, the merciful lord mentioned woman that offered herself to the prophet.This woman offered herself, a bond, yet not label as MMA, still and more importantly,in the same verse the prophet was told not to mary any more except MMA. This to me is proving that MMA is not = those you have a bond with.Note, I am not unaware of the fact that the provision therein was meant for the prophet alone.
Meanwhile, with the understanding that MMA means slaves, the interpretation for 424 is this ..and not allowed are muhsanat except that they become your slaves, in which case, their status as married becomes null and void.
You have argued that in 2221, a different label was used for slaves, you see, language is our invention,and the lord spoke to us in that language,In any human language, we have words/labels representing a thing and sometimes,a word/label represent more than a thing.Infact, this is the basis of ambiguity in our languages.
Therefore, the fact that a different label was used for slaves is not enough to conclude that MMA can't be taken to mean slaves.THINK ABOUT IT.
ZUBAIRUS
Great that is what i understand handshake