How sex before Marriage is not haram (prohibited) according to the Quran
-
Peace nimnimak,
I thought MMA meant those whom you have an oath with and not a bond.
I really want to know from you the meaning of oath with example in the context of our discussion.
I then consider the possibility of MMA to mean something like a girlfriend stronger with this verse
If any of you have not the means wherewith to wed free believing women, they may wed believing girls from among those whom your right hands possess....
So far we have concluded that to marry muhsinat, they must come from MMA. From the above is it also not such that to marry fatayat, they must come from MMA is well? The only other occurence of fatayat according to studyquran's project root thing is in 2433 and that verse does not say that fatayat can be married without them having to come from MMA.So with fatayat also a class that must come from MMA, is there any class that can be married without them having to come from MMA? I have not heard of any other class with respect to marriage.
Anyway from what i've discussed i currently think that MMA= something like a girl/boyfriend of some sort.
From what i've discussed, so far think that MMA is something like a girlfirend. I've not come across the usage of the phrase MMA in the Quran which could imply otherwise when i searched this phrase in globalquran and looked at the verses that came up.
What do you think?
Let us go back to 3350-52
O prophet, We have made lawful for you the wives to whom you
have already given their dowries, and those who are maintained
by your oath, as granted to you by God; and the daughters of the
brothers of your father, and the daughters of the sisters of your
father, and the daughters of the brothers of your mother, and the
daughters of the sisters of your mother - those who emigrated
with you. Also, the believing woman who had decreed herself to
the prophet, the prophet may marry her if he wishes, as a privilege
given only to you and not to the believers. We have already
decreed their rights in regard to their spouses and those who are
maintained by their oaths. This is to spare you any hardship. God
is Forgiver, Merciful.
3351 You may postpone whom you will of them, and you may receive
whom you will. And whomsoever you seek of those whom you
have set aside then there is no sin upon you. Such is best that they
may be comforted and not grieve, and that they may all be pleased
287
3351 ? 3361
with what you give them. And God knows what is in your hearts.
And God is Knowledgeable, Compassionate.
3352 No women are lawful to you beyond this, nor that you change
them for other wives, even though you may be attracted by their
beauty, except what is maintained by your oath. And God is
Watcher over all things.Do you mean the quran is refering to the prophet's girl friends where MMA were mentioned in the above verses?
THINK ABOUT IT
ZUBAIRUS
-
Peace nimnimak,
In 425, the quran said if you do not have the means to wed muhsanat,you may mary MMA from fatayatikum.......
Are you saying by this, if a person has no the means to marry muhsanat, he should go and marry his girl friend ?
THINK ABOUT IT
ZUBAIRUS
-
Salam R
That's not what we're debating. We're discussing wether sex is exclusive to marraige or not. In other words wether sex before marriage is haram or not.
I don't believe there is any such thing as sex before marriage. Sex is marriage. Adultery is divorce. So the sins associated with relationships which do not follow the rules of marriage are not about having a 'different kind of sex' - no such thing exists. Rather they are sins of ignoring the proper procedure.
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.MMA and spouse can be the same because the two kinds of spouse are the wife and the husband.
Hence 424 - listing people you can't be married to - "And the married from the women except what your oaths possess"
actually means "and the married women except as their husband". -
Nima , i think, wants the goodies without having to take up the responsibilites which a sexual relationship may throw in his face. Although it's not a concept within the quran , i wonder if it will take off within the quranic community as it has done in the western culture- i doubt it though.
As Zubairus said which prophets used to have girlfriends, any? Any historical facts apart from the religious texts?
peace
-
Perhaps the only problem is in interpreting 235?
Because if you don't translate 235 as "abstaining from sex" or as having anything to do with sexual intercourse, it wouldn't matter what your translation of "MMA" is (which is then made irrelevant to the subject).
You are right.
That could well be the problem. But i have not seen any strong Quranic refutaions yet. Could you provide Quranic support for why sex with MMA should be haram when it is permissble for us to unguard our privates to them like we unguard them to our spouses? People have argued to this and said that this (unguarding) is not the equivalent of sex. I did not claim this. I claimed that what it does mean is that one is free to ungaurd those parts which would mean that sex would become part of the things permissible. Unless this is restricted or limited by the Quran in some other verse which i have not seen.The word guard and the fact that MMA is often mentioned alongside azwaaj and the fact that to marry muhsinat they must come from MMA is IMO pretty strong in conveying that sex with MMA is halal. The issue in hand would be what qualifies one as an MMA.
If there was like a verse that said that sex is exclusive to marriage or if there was no MMA in 235-6 then that would work. But UNLESS we as the readers don't automatically assume that sex is exclusive to marriages, this won't work. And I don't see how we can be justified in assuming this.
-
You are right.
That could well be the problem. But i have not seen any strong Quranic refutaions yet. Could you provide Quranic support for why sex with MMA should be haram when it is permissble for us to unguard our privates to them like we unguard them to our spouses? People have argued to this and said that this (unguarding) is not the equivalent of sex. I did not claim this. I claimed that what it does mean is that one is free to ungaurd those parts which would mean that sex would become part of the things permissible. Unless this is restricted or limited by the Quran in some other verse which i have not seen.The word guard and the fact that MMA is often mentioned alongside azwaaj and the fact that to marry muhsinat they must come from MMA is IMO pretty strong in conveying that sex with MMA is halal. The issue in hand would be what qualifies one as an MMA.
If there was like a verse that said that sex is exclusive to marriage or if there was no MMA in 235-6 then that would work. But UNLESS we as the readers don't automatically assume that sex is exclusive to marriages, this won't work. And I don't see how we can be justified in assuming this.
Hi Nima,
Do these Ayah's go some way to depict who we may have sex with Br?
So can only wives bear children; doesn?t girlfriend accidently bear?..
025.074
YUSUFALI And those who pray, "Our Lord! Grant unto us wives and offspring who will be the comfort of our eyes, and give us (the grace) to lead the righteous."
025.075
YUSUFALI Those are the ones who will be rewarded with the highest place in heaven, because of their patient constancy therein shall they be met with salutations and peace,They were approaching Men rather then those who would be their wives Azwaj where went the girlfriends?
026.165
YUSUFALI "Of all the creatures in the world, will ye approach males,
026.166
YUSUFALI "And leave those whom Allah has created for you to be your mates? Nay, ye are a people transgressing (all limits)!"Again children only from wives, how about the children a girl friend may get?
016.072
YUSUFALI And Allah has made for you mates (and companions) of your own nature, and made for you, out of them, sons and daughters and grandchildren, and provided for you sustenance of the best will they then believe in vain things, and be ungrateful for Allah's favours?-Children from wives!
013.038
YUSUFALI We did send messengers before thee, and appointed for them wives and children and it was never the part of a messenger to bring a sign except as Allah permitted (or commanded). For each period is a Book (revealed).peace
-
Salam Sarah
I?ve been doing some reading about this topic so I thought I shall share my ideas, forgive me if it?s been discussed but take some thought.
It all looks new to me. Nice angle of approaching this issue.
Before we can say if sex is ok outside of marriage we need to understand what marriage is.
hmm
What I think about ?nikkah?. nikkah to me is a relationship. So I guess it could be seen as a marriage. However not necessarily. The ones that do zina do nikkah with each other (243) If we conclude that the zina people can never do nikkah with other people that would be illogical because that means we only accept them as lewd and that they can never be forgiven. But rather they seek a relationship with their kind because that?s how they survive and it?s what they seek.
Not sure on this because zina is more intense then fahsha. But still good point because people do change. Heres the verse 243 The adulterer will only marry an adulteress or she who is a polytheist. And the adulteress, she will only be married to an adulterer or he who is a polytheist. And such has been made forbidden for the believers.
Ok heres what i think based on the above. The verse also mentions polytheists. Now one can be a polytheist but change to a believer right? thus meaning that they are no longer a polythiest. Same with zina. One who commits zina is an adulterer. But if they change their ways, i don't think we can call them an adulterer anymore. Same with polythiests. Thus as long as they remain that, they are forbidden to believers. But once they become believers, then they are not haram to believers.
Verse 3350 makes it clear we can marry/nikkah with MMA. So by that we know MMA can?t equal a slave however MMA is ?what your right hand posses? possess indicates control.
I think anyone whom you have an oath with or a contract, you have some controle or right over them.
I?m not sure if I can clearly define MMA but I believe it would be someone such as a close relative in your control (blood or not blood related). Once you marry/nikkah an MMA i believe they become your azwaj, because you are taking them as that not taking them as an mma.
The problem with this is that in order to marry muhsinat women, one must first make them their MMA. The muhsinat must come from MMA in order to marry them. Same with fatayat i think.
Now read 425, basically we can put it in 2 categories one, a girl independent another being taken care of (having an oath/control) of somebody (MMA). If you can?t find an independent girl (girl 1) than you can marry/nikkah the MMA (girl 2). For MMA you take permission from their guardians. (I need to look more into this verse some things I don?t understand)
To me this verse would make sense as if you can't marry the independent women, marry the dependent ones as permission then is requiered from their parents/guardians
Ok from this verse what i get is that if you can't marry the muhsinat (bear in mind that you first need them to be MMA) then marry the dependent women who are your MMA. Which would convey that anyone you do intend to marry must first come through MMA.
If the MMA?s have an oath or are in the control of someone, how could it equal to they have my oath for exposing sexual parts/pleasurerelationships with them? I think this claim is illogical. Besides read 2433 MMA?s can?t be coerced to nikkah to the ones in their possession! Possession as in the one that looks after them.
I doubt that a parent can be an MMA based on 2431. All categories are mentioned and MMA is a seperate one.
From where do you get that MMAs are somebody elses MMA first?So if you take a relationship with someone they don't become your MMA, if you want a relationship WITH an MMA you need permission (425
Not sure on this based on what i've said so far.
Good luck on your search on f-r-j
peace
-
Hi Nima,
Do these Ayah's go some way to depict who we may have sex with Br?
So can only wives bear children; doesn?t girlfriend accidently bear?..
025.074
YUSUFALI And those who pray, "Our Lord! Grant unto us wives and offspring who will be the comfort of our eyes, and give us (the grace) to lead the righteous."
025.075
YUSUFALI Those are the ones who will be rewarded with the highest place in heaven, because of their patient constancy therein shall they be met with salutations and peace,They were approaching Men rather then those who would be their wives Azwaj where went the girlfriends?
026.165
YUSUFALI "Of all the creatures in the world, will ye approach males,
026.166
YUSUFALI "And leave those whom Allah has created for you to be your mates? Nay, ye are a people transgressing (all limits)!"Again children only from wives, how about the children a girl friend may get?
016.072
YUSUFALI And Allah has made for you mates (and companions) of your own nature, and made for you, out of them, sons and daughters and grandchildren, and provided for you sustenance of the best will they then believe in vain things, and be ungrateful for Allah's favours?-Children from wives!
013.038
YUSUFALI We did send messengers before thee, and appointed for them wives and children and it was never the part of a messenger to bring a sign except as Allah permitted (or commanded). For each period is a Book (revealed).peace
Hi Simple
I've chosen not to read your post because of your other posts. In particular this one
Nima , i think, wants the goodies without having to take up the responsibilites which a sexual relationship may throw in his face. Although it's not a concept within the quran , i wonder if it will take off within the quranic community as it has done in the western culture- i doubt it though.
I really don't see the point or vitue in replying to you beyond this.
Salam
-
Hi Simple
I've chosen not to read your post because of your other posts. In particular this one
I really don't see the point or vitue in replying to you beyond this.Salam
peace
I respect that
but still again just consider the Ayah's
peace
-
peace
I respect that
but still again just consider the Ayah's
peace
I did. Thanks
Peace
-
Peace nimnimak,
I really want to know from you the meaning of oath with example in the context of our discussion.
Let us go back to 3350-52
Do you mean the quran is refering to the prophet's girl friends where MMA were mentioned in the above verses?THINK ABOUT IT
ZUBAIRUS
Peace Zubairus
Sorry about the lateish reply. Got a bit distracted.
Oath on it's own is something i can't say in terms of Quran because i'm not sure. I know it's something very important to MMA but i was hoping first to round up all arguments against the act of sex with MMA or arguments for MMA being someting like a slave and then move onto the part of oath which is a very important part as this i think will determine much in terms of boundries and so on. It may even bring a completely different understanding to what an MMA is. But nevertheless i am still trying to conclude that sex with MMA is permissible based on what i have argued so far.
With respect to 3350
Not necessarily girlfriends. It could be like a fiance or something less. But i would think that it's on the lines of something which leads up to a marriage.
I can only think of relationships that do this. So i would think that it has to fall in the circle of a relationship. But the prophet's time was 1400 years ago i'm not sure how engagement and things like that would have worked back then. -
Peace nimnimak,
In 425, the quran said if you do not have the means to wed muhsanat,you may mary MMA from fatayatikum.......
Are you saying by this, if a person has no the means to marry muhsanat, he should go and marry his girl friend ?
THINK ABOUT IT
ZUBAIRUS
No i was kinda thinking if one has not the means to marry a muhsinat then one should marry fatayatikum. Both i think would have to first become MMA in order to be able to marry them. So both would be a girlfriend or a fiance at some point before marriage. But the difference between a muhsinat and fatayat is something that needs to be clarified as this will shed light on what muhsinat women possess that make them different with respect to fatayat for marriage and how if one has not the means a fatayat will solve the problem.
-
I don't believe there is any such thing as sex before marriage. Sex is marriage. Adultery is divorce. So the sins associated with relationships which do not follow the rules of marriage are not about having a 'different kind of sex' - no such thing exists. Rather they are sins of ignoring the proper procedure.
MMA and spouse can be the same because the two kinds of spouse are the wife and the husband.
Hence 424 - listing people you can't be married to - "And the married from the women except what your oaths possess"
actually means "and the married women except as their husband".What about this
If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice.
-
43, the Liquid Dharma translation
"If you don't think you can look after the orphans well enough, marry the women (their mothers with) 2, 3 or 4 (orphaned children) or of you can't (because you are female), take a husband (fathers of orphaned children) that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice."
Want me to try another one?
-
43, the Liquid Dharma translation
"If you don't think you can look after the orphans well enough, marry the women (their mothers with) 2, 3 or 4 (orphaned children) or of you can't (because you are female), take a husband (fathers of orphaned children) that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice."
Want me to try another one?
hmm
if you can't = it clearly states in arabic 'if you fear you can't do justice'
take a husband is wrong because 'wahadatan' is feminine not masculine
-
Salam Nima
I missed your post before sorry
Ok heres what i think based on the above. The verse also mentions polytheists. Now one can be a polytheist but change to a believer right? thus meaning that they are no longer a polythiest. Same with zina. One who commits zina is an adulterer. But if they change their ways, i don't think we can call them an adulterer anymore. Same with polythiests. Thus as long as they remain that, they are forbidden to believers. But once they become believers, then they are not haram to believers.
Right, people change so we accept them as they are today.
MMA is a limited category.. to me it indicates right hands posses someone you have control of, someone under your care. i.e. such as orphans/widows.
The problem with this is that in order to marry muhsinat women, one must first make them their MMA. The muhsinat must come from MMA in order to marry them. Same with fatayat i think.
No this is wrong. Are you talking about verse 425?
Muhsinat is a preference over mma, if you cant marry muhsinat then marry an MMA. Not marry muhsinat from MMA. It is illogical because muhsinat are independent, mma are not. Get me? We take mma as someone we have an oath but i believe its more than this.
Ok from this verse what i get is that if you can't marry the muhsinat (bear in mind that you first need them to be MMA) then marry the dependent women who are your MMA. Which would convey that anyone you do intend to marry must first come through MMA.
Find me the verse that says muhsinat need to first be MMA, maybe Im looking at the wrong place.
I doubt that a parent can be an MMA based on 2431. All categories are mentioned and MMA is a seperate one.
From where do you get that MMAs are somebody elses MMA first
?An MMA can be anyone who isnt independent someone under someones care. But I think the category is even smaller than that. But anyway if someone is under my care theyre my mma, maybe you choose to marry that person, and verse 425 proves that person needs permission from the ahl to marry that mma. But lets say another scenario. I have an mma and I got married and I no longer wanted to care for that mma or couldnt or whatever another person could take that mma.
From my reading MMA doesnt = a gf/bf type relationships
MMAs arent in the prohibited boundaries of marriage right? so when the verses says protect your frj from azwaj or mma. Well basically its saying protect your secret affairs with these people.
Frj can also mean faults (but probably not the strongest translation in this context).
If you marry an mma well than you could have sex with them. IF you marry them so then the frj could mean sex provided you do nikkah with them. Why I say this?
3350 makes it clear we can marry/nikkah with MMA. MMA arent automatically married to us
2433 MMAs cant be coerced to nikkah
425 if you want a relationship WITH an MMA you need permission.sex isn't an automatic given
Also
Read this verse
3355 (Asad) it is no sin for them before their fathers, or their sons, or their brothers, or their brothers sons, or their sisters sons, or their womenfolk, or such as their right hands may possess. But remain conscious of God - for, behold, God is witness unto everything.
The idea of appearing freely, relaxed in dress code in front of their bros etc is the same with MMA. It gives indication its not about sex or sexual connotations. For me this is a stronger opinion in regards to mma not being oath partners with allowance of sexual relations because you wouldnt do that with your brother! Or your sister!
This is my current understanding
peace
-
You are right.
That could well be the problem. But i have not seen any strong Quranic refutaions yet. Could you provide Quranic support for why sex with MMA should be haram when it is permissble for us to unguard our privates to them like we unguard them to our spouses?.....
If there was like a verse that said that sex is exclusive to marriage or if there was no MMA in 235-6 then that would work. But UNLESS we as the readers don't automatically assume that sex is exclusive to marriages, this won't work. And I don't see how we can be justified in assuming this.I have to agree with "Simple", this whole thread is ridiculous and does nothing but make a mockery of sacred scripture. The entire premise of the "argument" is that "ma malakat aymanukum" in 236 denotes a different category of persons other than spouses. As "Simple" pointed out on page 2, and has subsequently been ignored, the use of the conjunction "aw" does not necessarily correspond to the english word "or". It can, and is, used as an amplifying conjunction, especially following a negation, see Lane's Book 1 Page 122. Alternatively, Muhammad Asad translates "aw" at 236 as a clarifier " with any but their spouses - that is, those whom they rightfully possess ". Thus we see that this so called argument has nothing left to stand on. The other verses mentioned, such as 424-25 and 2433 are frankly irrelevant to the discussion, since the argument is that sex outside of marriage is permissible. In fact 2433 just blows the entire argument out of the water for the relevant word there is Ghayn-Nun-Ya, which means to be content, satisfied, to be free of need, see Lane's Book 1 page 2302. Are we to be "satisfied/content" with casual sex? Or, what are we to stand in no need of? It's totally absurd! Those who cannot marry should content themselves with staying chaste, or be free from the want of sexual desires...until a such a time as God enriches them from his bounty.
All this is really child's play though, because the whole argument goes so obviously and clearly against the spirit and tenor of scripture that the level of dishonesty required to put it forward is astonishing. Remember, this is not just about sex between a man and a woman who are betrothed, but rather what's openly being promoted is causual sex with a "girlfriend" or "boyfriend", of which the logical conclusion was drawn at the end of the opening post in the thread One night stands. It makes perfect "sense", since you can have sex with your girlfriend because you are somehow bonded with her by some "oath" that has never actually been declared or contracted; why not have sex after a couple of hours at the club together? I mean we don't actually have to take an oath to make the bond, it's somehow magically implied. No, to anyone who is honest "those who our right hands/oaths possess" ARE our spouses because, obviously, these are the ones with whom we have taken vows and thus bonded ourselves, not to mention the giving of a dowry.
This whole line of argumentation is an insult to those who actually believe in the Most Holy and True God, and the final judgment. It should be pretty clear from the opening post that this person does not submit to our Lord and Creator, as he constantly emphasizes that "he" does not see anything wrong, or what matters is what "our" hearts and reason tell us and that this is sufficient to "justify" us. NO, what matters is what our Lord tells us, not what we think should be wrong or right. Thus he rejects a divinely revealed truth.
As a side note, it is no suprise that the pro abortion kafirs all came on board. In 1731 Our Lord specifically uses waw-lam-dal which denotes more than simply a child out of the womb, rather it specifies that which is begotten, generated, fathered...which is why it is used to refute Christian claims about Jesus in 1935. Afterall, Christians don't believe Jesus was God only after he was born, as the nicene creed states he was "begotten, not made" by the Father "before all the worlds". so, this is the mechanism by which Trinitarians are able to say that the Son (Jesus) is of the same substance as the Father. This is what our Lord refutes, and in a brilliantly subtle fashion by using "waladin", indicating that 1) God did not take a spouse, therefore does not "beget" and thus the Son cannot be of the same "substance" as the Father and 2) Demonstrates that Waw-Lam_Dal is not simply used to describe a child out of the womb.
-
Peace Sarah
MMA is a limited category.. to me it indicates right hands posses someone you have control of, someone under your care. i.e. such as orphans/widows.
No this is wrong. Are you talking about verse 425?
Muhsinat is a preference over mma, if you cant marry muhsinat then marry an MMA. Not marry muhsinat from MMA. It is illogical because muhsinat are independent, mma are not. Get me? We take mma as someone we have an oath but i believe its more than this.
Find me the verse that says muhsinat need to first be MMA, maybe Im looking at the wrong place.Before I quote the verse i just want to point out that i'm not sure what MMA is but with some specifications given with respect to them in the scripture i currently think it has to be some sort of relationship. How slack (just an agreement) or how serious (engagement) a relationship this might be is something to be found out after we clear up the idea that sex with MMA is halal or haram.
In 423 the list of women that are haram to men in marriage is given. In 424 muhsinat are included in that list and it is said unless they come from MMA. Meaning that in order to marry muhsinat, they must first come from MMA. Here are the verses
423 Forbidden for you are your mothers, and your daughters, and your sisters, and the sisters of your father, and the sisters of your mother, and the daughters of your brother, and the daughters of your sister, and your foster mothers who suckled you, and your sisters from suckling, and the mothers of your women, and your step-daughters who are in your lodgings from your women with whom you have already consummated the marriage; if you have not consummated the marriage then there is no sin upon you; and those who were in wedlock with your sons who are from your seed, and that you join between two sisters except what has already been done. God is Forgiving, Merciful.
424 And the muhsinat, except those maintained by your oathsAn MMA can be anyone who isnt independent someone under someones care. But I think the category is even smaller than that. But anyway if someone is under my care theyre my mma, maybe you choose to marry that person, and verse 425 proves that person needs permission from the ahl to marry that mma.
Right. Consider 423-24. Does this not convey that muhsinat must first become your MMA in order to be able to marry them? Also the other category given are fatayat and not MMA but it says of the fatayat who are your MMA which i take to mean that in order to marry the fatayat they must also become your MMA first.
From my reading MMA doesnt = a gf/bf type relationships
It might be that it's not. But consider the above. What else could it be implying?
MMAs arent in the prohibited boundaries of marriage right? so when the verses says protect your frj from azwaj or mma. Well basically its saying protect your secret affairs with these people.
I'm not sure I understand you here. What do you mean by "MMA arent in the prohibited boundaries of marriage" Also personally i think that for f-r-j to mean personal affairs is a long stretch. How did you get to that? I just had a look at the root of f-r-j and i'm not sure. Is there another verse in AQ that you came across where f-r-j meant that?
If you marry an mma well than you could have sex with them. IF you marry them so then the frj could mean sex provided you do nikkah with them. Why I say this?
3350 makes it clear we can marry/nikkah with MMA. MMA arent automatically married to us
2433 MMAs cant be coerced to nikkah
425 if you want a relationship WITH an MMA you need permission.I agree on MMA not being automatically married and that marriage with MMA is doable. But i don't agree with having to request permission when it comes to MMA. That permission is only for the fatayat.
sex isn't an automatic given
I don't think AQ would have expected us to automatically assume that sex is exclusive to marriages. But what it does do is clearly limit it to two groups. Azwaaj and MMA.
Also
Read this verse
3355 (Asad) it is no sin for them before their fathers, or their sons, or their brothers, or their brothers sons, or their sisters sons, or their womenfolk, or such as their right hands may possess. But remain conscious of God - for, behold, God is witness unto everything.
The idea of appearing freely, relaxed in dress code in front of their bros etc is the same with MMA. It gives indication its not about sex or sexual connotations. For me this is a stronger opinion in regards to mma not being oath partners with allowance of sexual relations because you wouldnt do that with your brother! Or your sister!
I know
But i think you missed something. Let me quote a similar verse 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 MMA, or the male servants who are without need, or the child who has not yet understood the composition of women. And let them not strike with their feet in a manner that reveals what they are keeping hidden of their beauty. And repent to God, all of you believers, that you may succeed.Here the women can relax the code in front of their husbands and their MMA and their fathers and so on. Obviously this does not = sex with them. But it would mean that sex is a no to everyone including in marriage as there would be nothing in the Quran that says it's ok to have sex with spouse!& & '( unless we automatically assume that sex is ok in marriage) However there is 235-6 which state two cateogries in which the unguarding of the private parts is acceptable. To all else (including father, sister and so on) the unguarding of the private parts is haram. Do you see where i'm coming from?
peace
-
I have to agree with "Simple", this whole thread is ridiculous and does nothing but make a mockery of sacred scripture. The entire premise of the "argument" is that "ma malakat aymanukum" in 236 denotes a different category of persons other than spouses. As "Simple" pointed out on page 2, and has subsequently been ignored, the use of the conjunction "aw" does not necessarily correspond to the english word "or". It can, and is, used as an amplifying conjunction, especially following a negation, see Lane's Book 1 Page 122. Alternatively, Muhammad Asad translates "aw" at 236 as a clarifier " with any but their spouses - that is, those whom they rightfully possess ". Thus we see that this so called argument has nothing left to stand on. The other verses mentioned, such as 424-25 and 2433 are frankly irrelevant to the discussion, since the argument is that sex outside of marriage is permissible. In fact 2433 just blows the entire argument out of the water for the relevant word there is Ghayn-Nun-Ya, which means to be content, satisfied, to be free of need, see Lane's Book 1 page 2302. Are we to be "satisfied/content" with casual sex? Or, what are we to stand in no need of? It's totally absurd! Those who cannot marry should content themselves with staying chaste, or be free from the want of sexual desires...until a such a time as God enriches them from his bounty.
All this is really child's play though, because the whole argument goes so obviously and clearly against the spirit and tenor of scripture that the level of dishonesty required to put it forward is astonishing. Remember, this is not just about sex between a man and a woman who are betrothed, but rather what's openly being promoted is causual sex with a "girlfriend" or "boyfriend", of which the logical conclusion was drawn at the end of the opening post in the thread One night stands. It makes perfect "sense", since you can have sex with your girlfriend because you are somehow bonded with her by some "oath" that has never actually been declared or contracted; why not have sex after a couple of hours at the club together? I mean we don't actually have to take an oath to make the bond, it's somehow magically implied. No, to anyone who is honest "those who our right hands/oaths possess" ARE our spouses because, obviously, these are the ones with whom we have taken vows and thus bonded ourselves, not to mention the giving of a dowry.
This whole line of argumentation is an insult to those who actually believe in the Most Holy and True God, and the final judgment.
It should be pretty clear from the opening post that this person does not submit to our Lord and Creator, as he constantly emphasizes that "he" does not see anything wrong, or what matters is what "our" hearts and reason tell us and that this is sufficient to "justify" us. NO, what matters is what our Lord tells us, not what we think should be wrong or right. Thus he rejects a divinely revealed truth.As a side note, it is no suprise that the pro abortion kafirs all came on board. In 1731 Our Lord specifically uses waw-lam-dal which denotes more than simply a child out of the womb, rather it specifies that which is begotten, generated, fathered...which is why it is used to refute Christian claims about Jesus in 1935. Afterall, Christians don't believe Jesus was God only after he was born, as the nicene creed states he was "begotten, not made" by the Father "before all the worlds". so, this is the mechanism by which Trinitarians are able to say that the Son (Jesus) is of the same substance as the Father. This is what our Lord refutes, and in a brilliantly subtle fashion by using "waladin", indicating that 1) God did not take a spouse, therefore does not "beget" and thus the Son cannot be of the same "substance" as the Father and 2) Demonstrates that Waw-Lam_Dal is not simply used to describe a child out of the womb.
This is a long post. It may benefit you. I hope it reminds.
Firstly
The arguments you've put up have been answered. If you want further discussion on those points, point to the answers, fault them and then we might discuss them. I think that it is better in the sight of God to discuss peacefully or leave peacefully then to provoke people by accusing them as kafirs for one belief. JUST THINK ON THIS FROM A MORAL POINT OF VIEW.NO, what matters is what our Lord tells us,
Ok heres the long part of the post. Read it all before making judgements.
How do you plan on figuring out what God is telling you without the use of the faculties he has given you? Say you thought the Quran told you to go and beat women (it does not say this but this is an example. Perhaps you may hear) Your heart and reasoning tell you not to. What do you do? What's more likely? That your interpretation of the scripture is wrong or your heart and reason? Your heart and reason and logic will hopefully guide you to the truth of the Quran. But if you ignore and focus ONLY on your interpretation or of anothers, you may never reach the truth of the true interpretation. You would not have acknowledged, you would have blindly followed. Similar to idol-worshipers (please note that i am not calling you this) they blindly followed.
There are somethings such as the forbidding of swine which may not make sense to the reason. But it does not go against the heart as you are not harming anyone else. So considering the strength of the likelyhood of the accuracy of the interpretation that swine is haram with respect to the LITTLE problem it would cause when reasoning out, you don't have swine.
Now think about the lashing for Zina. Think about how understandings have changed even though they looked like they could not. Some recieved a lashing of the sort that was actually not prescribed by the Quran. Some understand the lashing as meant to not hurt physically and as purely a humiliating punishment. But people back then who thought they had interpreted it right decided that they should ignore their heart and reason because they thought they had the right interpretation whereas most likely they did not. They though their interpretation is what God is telling them forgetting that the heart and reason are from God.
How would they justify themselves in the sight of GOD?
Would the justification be greatly different to a suicide bomber who kills innocents? Both justifications would be something like I though that ALLAH the most holy lord condoned this. That is what I understood from the Quran. So if it's asked of them why did you ignore your heart and reason....they would be in trouble then. Clearly.Whereas those who give more value to their heart and reason then their interpretation, and thus are much less likely to commit acts such as suicide or lashing, would be better able to justify themselves in the sight of God. If it says lash in the Quran and they had refused, they could justify themselves with Although it seemed pretty clear in the Quran, it was also clear in my heart and reason that this is wrong. As you gave me heart and reason, i concluded most likely that i or others have misinterpreted the Quran and thus i did not lash because of the heart and reason you gave me told me not to.
Which group sound more kafir to you?
Think on this. How else do you expect to get to the truth without requesting guidance and thinking about what the truth could be?Also don't be so insulting to some others (me included) Did it not cross your mind that you may be wrong about them?