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

[unknownuser]

Peace Leyna )

I basically agree. But I believe that many things which were being introduced by the Qur'an were not meant to be practiced exactly as they are described therein, but should be adapted to time and circumstances. Let's take women's issues, for example, like inheritance, divorce, bearing witness etc. I think most of us agree that the creator makes no difference based on gender and that equality and justice are what should be achieved. But I also believe that many things that were an improvement in women's right in the seventh century would be a huge step backwards if they are being applied nowadays. So I believe that the changes and rules being introduced back then were merely the starting point of a development.

I also believe that the laws of the Quran can be adapted to the time and circumstances we live in. The Quran is very flexible.

If you are interested in learning more about the rights of women according to the Quran, I recommend an article about Quran. The article explain that the Quran gives women more rights than any other religious scripture, and that the Quran even gives women more rights than the constitution of the United states

Koran and the liberation of women
http//www.quran.org.uk/out.php?LinkID=137

I also recommend this book

Quran and woman
http//www.amazon.com/Quran-Woman-Rereading-Sacred-Perspective/dp/0195128362/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275825043&sr=8-2

Have a nice day

[Leyna]

If you are interested in learning more about the rights of women according to the Quran, I recommend an article about Quran.

David, I've been researching the issue of women's rights according to the Qur'an for years. Nothing in the above link is new to me in any way. However, I believe that comparing women's rights in the Qur'an to those given by other scriptures is sort of missing the point. Because usually, the authors of such texts come to the conclusion that the laws regarding women should be applied exactly as they were being applied 1400 years ago. And that, as I have previously stated, would not lead to more equality and justice, quite the opposite.

For example -- Instead of saying that the Qur'an was the first scripture to limit polygamy and trying to "prove" the supposed benefits of it with dubious arguments, it would be more productive to admit that it's simply an outdated practice that should have no place in today's world.

Also

Islam is the only religion that gives equal rights to everyone regardless of race or sex. There is no religious book, not even the constitution of the US, which states explicitly like the Koran, "And for women are rights equal to the rights against them in justice."

I don't know about the US constitution, but many countries' constitutions explicitly state that men and women are equal before the law.

From the German constitution

Article 3 (Equality before the law)

(1) All persons shall be equal before the law.

(2) Men and women shall have equal rights. The state shall promote the actual implementation of equal rights for women and men and take steps to eliminate disadvantages that now exist.

(3) No person shall be favored or disfavored because of sex, parentage, race, language, homeland and origin, faith, or religious or political opinions. No person shall be disfavored because of disability.

I also recommend this book

Quran and woman
http//www.amazon.com/Quran-Woman-Rereading-Sacred-Perspective/dp/0195128362/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275825043&sr=8-2

I own this book, and I also recommended it previously. yes

http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=16391.45

[Wakas]

peace Leyna, all,

Because usually, the authors of such texts come to the conclusion that the laws regarding women should be applied exactly as they were being applied 1400 years ago. And that, as I have previously stated, would not lead to more equality and justice, quite the opposite.

For example -- Instead of saying that the Qur'an was the first scripture to limit polygamy and trying to "prove" the supposed benefits of it with dubious arguments, it would be more productive to admit that it's simply an outdated practice that should have no place in today's world.

I am curious, if you have been studying woman's rights according to AQ for years, is this the best example you have of something that is contrary to what you consider "more equality/justice"?

Also, what dubious arguments do you refer to? Is it not a fact, for example, that in battles/wars, the vast majority of people killed are men?
Also, what is "outdated" about a practice that is only allowed in specific/limited circumstances and requires the consent of the existing wife?

[Leyna]

I am curious, if you have been studying woman's rights according to AQ for years, is this the best example you have of something that is contrary to what you consider "more equality/justice"?

Also, what dubious arguments do you refer to? Is it not a fact, for example, that in battles/wars, the vast majority of people killed are men?

Hi Wakas, I didn't suggest that the example I gave is the best. ) I just picked one issue from the text in the link.

There are many statistics about the number of men vs. the number of women in various countries available. It is simply wrong to state that females always outnumber males. If I were to follow the logic of the argument that polygamy is a good thing in every society where women outnumber men, the conclusion would be to suggest polyandry for societies in which men outnumber women, right?

That's what I mean by dubious. Also, I reject the notion that a woman is better off being a second wife than having no husband at all. I've read that argument countless times, and I find it insulting and patronizing. I've even read texts by so-called Islamic scholars (Qaradawi, for example) who call single ladies "surplus women" and suggest that they have no other option than becoming prostitutes and pass their life "in bitter deprivation", if they don't find a man who will take them as a second wife.
nope
In many countries where the population of women is a few million more than the population of men, some women can statistically never find husbands if everyone practiced monogamy. Such oppressed women could be given family life and hence social justice by "restricted" Koranic polygamy.

Again -- would the same people who write this say that in societies where men outnumber women, it would be better for a man to be a second husband rather than staying single? I doubt it. So there's a double standard here.

I'll be happy to explain in detail why I don't feel comfortable about the linked text and similar ones, if it interests you. Don't want to derail this thread though, so maybe it would be better to discuss polygamy in one of the already existing threads on the subject?

But right now I need to get some urgent work done first.

peace

[Wakas]

peace Leyna,

polyandry, could result in a child not knowing who their father is. AQ is meant for all people at all times, and has to balance idealism with practicality.

I agree with the points you made about some of the traditional reasoning given.

I do not wish to derail the thread either. My main point is simply having the option available in limited circumstances and requiring consent from the existing wife sounds reasonable to me.

[Bigmo]

Hold your horses big man.

Concubine c.1300, from L. concubina (fem.), from concumbere "to lie with," from com- "with" + cubare "to lie down."

It's not the same thing as ma malakat aymanukum, it just doesn't even sound like it relates to the the term there.

Care to elaborate? And how can it sound the same when the Koran is Arabic? I am not sure what you mean. Why can't MMA not be a concubine especially when we know many prophets in the OT had concubines. And from the definition of concubine it is basically a wife.

Among the Israelites, it was common for men to acknowledge 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 commanded the same respect and inviolability as the wife, and it was regarded as the deepest dishonour, for the man to whom she belonged, if other hands were laid upon her; David is portrayed as having become greatly dishonoured when his concubines had a sexual relationship with his son Absalom.

Since it was regarded as the highest blessing to have many children, while the greatest curse was childlessness, legitimate wives often gave their maids to their husbands to atone, at least in part, for their own barrenness, as in the cases of Sarah and Hagar, Leah and Zilpah, 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. (although this concept is also challenged in the fact that Abimelech had previously slain 69 of his 70 brothers before he began his reign.) ((Jotham having escaped))

Later biblical figures such as Gideon, David, and Solomon had concubines in addition to many childbearing wives. For example, the Book of Kings claims that Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.

In Judaism
In Judaism, concubines are referred to by the Hebrew term pilegesh. This is etymologically related to the Aramaic phrase palga isha, meaning half-wife. A cognate term later appeared in Greek as the loan word pallax/pallakis.

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. However, 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, believe that concubines are strictly reserved for kings, and thus that a commoner may not have a concubine; indeed, such thinkers argue that commoners may not engage in any type of sexual relations outside of a marriage. Shortly before Maimonides had reached this view, Sunni Muslims officially prohibited mutah relationships (which are similar to concubinage relationships); some therefore suggest that Maimonides view was in response to this, in a similar way to Gershom ben Judah's ban on polygamy only 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.

So maybe this practice was common among the Arabs in ancient time. Its basically a wife without the formalities.

[Bigmo]

Care to elaborate? And how can it sound the same when the Koran is Arabic? I am not sure what you mean. Why can't MMA not be a concubine especially when we know many prophets in the OT had concubines. And from the definition of concubine it is basically a wife.

Among the Israelites, it was common for men to acknowledge 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 commanded the same respect and inviolability as the wife, and it was regarded as the deepest dishonour, for the man to whom she belonged, if other hands were laid upon her; David is portrayed as having become greatly dishonoured when his concubines had a sexual relationship with his son Absalom.

Since it was regarded as the highest blessing to have many children, while the greatest curse was childlessness, legitimate wives often gave their maids to their husbands to atone, at least in part, for their own barrenness, as in the cases of Sarah and Hagar, Leah and Zilpah, 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. (although this concept is also challenged in the fact that Abimelech had previously slain 69 of his 70 brothers before he began his reign.) ((Jotham having escaped))

Later biblical figures such as Gideon, David, and Solomon had concubines in addition to many childbearing wives. For example, the Book of Kings claims that Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.

In Judaism
In Judaism, concubines are referred to by the Hebrew term pilegesh. This is etymologically related to the Aramaic phrase palga isha, meaning half-wife. A cognate term later appeared in Greek as the loan word pallax/pallakis.

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. However, 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, believe that concubines are strictly reserved for kings, and thus that a commoner may not have a concubine; indeed, such thinkers argue that commoners may not engage in any type of sexual relations outside of a marriage. Shortly before Maimonides had reached this view, Sunni Muslims officially prohibited mutah relationships (which are similar to concubinage relationships); some therefore suggest that Maimonides view was in response to this, in a similar way to Gershom ben Judah's ban on polygamy only 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.

So maybe this practice was common among the Arabs in ancient time. Its basically a wife without the formalities.

I got some interesting info

Looking at the Bible

Concubine The difference between wife and concubine was less marked among the Hebrews than among us, owing to the absence of moral stigma. The difference probably lay in the absence of the right of the bill of divorce, without which the wife could not be repudiated. With regard to the children of wife and of concubine, there was no such difference as our illegitimacy implies. The latter were a supplementary family to the former; their names occur in the patriarchal genealogies, (Genesis 2224; 1 Chronicles 122) and their position and provision would depend on the father's will. (Genesis 256) The state of concubinage is assumed and provided for by the law of Moses. A concubine would generally be either (1) a Hebrew girl bought of her father; (2) a Gentile captive taken in war; (3) a foreign slave bought; or (4) a Canaanitish woman, bond or free. The rights of the first two were protected by the law, (Exodus 217; 2110-14) but the third was unrecognized and the fourth prohibited. Free Hebrew women also might become concubines. To seize on royal concubines for his use was probably the intent of Abner's act, (2 Samuel 37) and similarly the request on behalf of Adonijah was construed. (1 Kings 221-24)

Also we have this Biblical analysis

What does the Bible say about concubines?

Answer
There was a time when people in the Bible had concubines. (Note that a concubine in the Old Testament context is not a mistress, but more like a lesser wife. The relationship was as binding as a marriage, although the concubine may not have had all the privileges of the full wives.) Perhaps the two most famous are Abraham and Jacob, although Kings David and Solomon also had numerous concubines.

If Abraham?s wife, Sarah, had not offered Hagar, her handmaid, to her husband as a concubine we might not have the conflicts between Arab and Jew that we now have. Those two ethnicities trace their lines back to Abraham and his wife and concubine. (Genesis 16 and 21)

Abraham?s grandson, Jacob (also known as Israel), had two wives. He also had their handmaids as concubines. Several of the twelve tribes of Israel were descended through the concubines. (Genesis 30)

Solomon had problems because of his many wives and concubines. ?And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines and his wives turned away his heart.? (1 Kings 113) They turned him to idolatry.

http//www.minuteswithmessiah.com/question/concubines.html

Also some more Biblical analysis

Concubines
by Wayne Blank

In ancient times, a concubine was a woman living in a lawful marriage arrangement with a man, but whose status was regarded as being less than a wife. Concubines were respected, had legal rights, and their children were regarded as legitimate, although the children of the wife (or wives) were most often given preference in matters of inheritance. While the inability of a wife to have children was a practical reason for the presence of a concubine in the family (e.g. Sarah suggested that her husband Abraham take Hagar as a concubine i.e. Genesis 161-3), the situation also sometimes reached absurd proportions, such as with Solomon who had 300 concubines along with his 700 wives (1 Kings 113).

Examples of concubines in Bible History

"Abraham gave all he had to Isaac. But to the sons of his concubines Abraham gave gifts, and while he was still living he sent them away from his son Isaac, eastward to the east country." (Genesis 255-6 RSV)

"Now Gideon had seventy sons, his own offspring, for he had many wives. And his concubine who was in Shechem also bore him a son, and he called his name Abimelech." (Judges 830-31 RSV)

Four of the tribes of Israel (Dan and Naphtali, and Gad and Asher) originated from Jacob's concubines Bilhah and Zilpah. See Children of Jacob

"Now Saul had a concubine, whose name was Rizpah, the daughter of Aiah." (2 Samuel 37 RSV)

"And David took more concubines and wives from Jerusalem, after he came from Hebron; and more sons and daughters were born to David." (2 Samuel 513 RSV)

"Ahithophel said to Absalom, "Go in to your father's concubines, whom he has left to keep the house; and all Israel will hear that you have made yourself odious to your father, and the hands of all who are with you will be strengthened." So they pitched a tent for Absalom upon the roof; and Absalom went in to his father's concubines in the sight of all Israel." (2 Samuel 1621-22 RSV)

"King Belshazzar made a great feast for a thousand of his lords, and drank wine in front of the thousand. Belshazzar, when he tasted the wine, commanded that the vessels of gold and of silver which Nebuchadnezzar his father had taken out of the temple in Jerusalem be brought, that the king and his lords, his wives, and his concubines might drink from them." (Daniel 51-2 RSV) (see The Writing On The Wall)

http//www.keyway.ca/htm2001/20010114.htm

So if this is what the Quran means by MMA then the allegation in this thread "sex before marriage is not prohibited in Quran" can not be based on this since its clear that everybody in the Bible saw concubines as a marriage but of a lower status. Its a pratice that only makes sense in a polygamous setting or in a tribal societies. It has no relevance to any debates we can have today. At least thats what it seems from the way the Bible talks about it. But now perhaps I understand why the Quran talked about finances since concubines can be vulnerable in this regard.

Some more interesting stuff

Concubine The difference between wife and concubine was less marked among the Hebrews than among us, owing to the absence of moral stigma. The difference probably lay in the absence of the right of the bill of divorce, without which the wife could not be repudiated. With regard to the children of wife and of concubine, there was no such difference as our illegitimacy implies. The latter were a supplementary family to the former; their names occur in the patriarchal genealogies, (Genesis 2224; 1 Chronicles 122) and their position and provision would depend on the father's will. (Genesis 256) The state of concubinage is assumed and provided for by the law of Moses. A concubine would generally be either (1) a Hebrew girl bought of her father; (2) a Gentile captive taken in war; (3) a foreign slave bought; or (4) a Canaanitish woman, bond or free. The rights of the first two were protected by the law, (Exodus 217; 2110-14) but the third was unrecognized and the fourth prohibited. Free Hebrew women also might become concubines. To seize on royal concubines for his use was probably the intent of Abner's act, (2 Samuel 37) and similarly the request on behalf of Adonijah was construed. (1 Kings 221-24)

Deuteronomy 2110-14

When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive,

And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;

Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;

And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.

And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

But now it all makes some sense. In all cases it about marriage. So the allegation poised here that sex before marriage is not prohibited have nothing to do with MMA. The Old Testament is amazing stuff.

[rraza]

wow...i had NO idea about all of this in the bible...thankyou so much fr posting this )

[FAR]

Care to elaborate? And how can it sound the same when the Koran is Arabic? I am not sure what you mean. Why can't MMA not be a concubine especially when we know many prophets in the OT had concubines. And from the definition of concubine it is basically a wife.

Among the Israelites, it was common for men to acknowledge 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.

I said the meaning doesn't sound the same. It cannot be a concubine because there isn't such a term in even in the bible. The biblical term is "half wife". And there are legal stipulations with such women, not so with concubines as done in greece and rome and italy.

http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilegesh

Using the greek corrupt understanding of the term is unfounded.

[nimnimak_11]

Peace All

A summary of the Quran with regards to the topic MMA (key things i've picked out from this thread)

The issue of MMA
MMA literally means those whom you maintain by your oaths (plural)

Important verses with regards to MMA
235-6 (We can unguard private parts to them)
423-24 (Cannot marry the Muhsinat women unless/until they are MMA)
425 (This verse looks to me like its implying that the fatayat are also forbidden unless/until they are MMA)

From the above verses alone, I conclude that MMA at least entails something like a fianc or girlfriend of some sort. Specifically when we look at how a Muhsinat must be of MMA before being permitted for marriage.

There are verses however that may convey differently to general notions of a fianc or girlfriend.
Pointed out by Aalmakto and others

2458 O you who believe, let those who are maintained by your oaths, and those who have not yet attained puberty, request your permission regarding three times before the dawn contact prayer, and when you put off your attire from the noon time, and after the evening contact prayer. These are three private times for you. Other than these times, it is not wrong for you or them to intermingle with one another. God thus clarifies the revelations for you. And God is Knowledgeable, Wise.

3028 An example is put forth for you from among yourselves are there any from among those who are maintained by your oaths that are partners to you in what provisions We have given you that you become equal therein? Would you fear them as you fear each other? It is such that We clarify the revelations for a people who have sense.

1671 And God has preferred some of you over others in provision. So it is not for those who have been preferred to relinquish their provision to those who are maintained by their oaths, that they may become equal in it. Would they deny the favor of God?

The strongest proof against MMA meaning fianc or girlfriend IMO is the following (which i have quoted from Aalmaktos post)

3353 O you who believe, do not enter the homes of the prophet unless you are invited to a meal, without you forcing such an invitation. But if you are invited, you may enter. And when you finish eating, you shall leave, without staying to wait for a narrative. This used to bother the prophet, and he was shy to tell you. But God does not shy away from the truth. And if you ask his wives for something, ask them from behind a barrier. This is purer for your hearts and their hearts. And it is not for you to harm the messenger of God, nor that you should marry his wives after him. This is indeed a gross offence with God.
3354 If you reveal anything, or hide it, God is fully aware of all things.
3355 There is no sin upon them before their fathers, or their sons, or their brothers, or the sons of their brothers, or the sons of their sisters, or their women, or those who are maintained by their oaths. And be aware of God, for God is witness over all things.

Basically what I am getting at is. It is not pure for men to ask the Prophet's wives "something" unless behind a barrier.... EXCEPT for the Prophet's Wives fathers, sons etc. and MMAs (see the Arabic, it is clearly about them). So verse 3355 is implying that the Prophet's wives had MMAs!

Looking at it, I think it not to make sense for MMA to exclusively mean a girlfriend/boyfriend or fianc but that a finace or bf/gf could be one of the meanings it entails. I think this because I cannot see MMA to mean gf/bf in 3353-55 whilst I cannot see it to mean anything other than gf/bf when we look at 423-24 with regards to the muhsinat.

In short, MMA can mean various things. A girlfriend/boyfriend is amongst the possible things that an MMA can entail. All things with an MMA are possible, so long as it does not count as lewdness (fahasha) however an important verse to keep in mind is 2433. More specifically this part And let those who are not able to marry continue to abstain until God enriches them of His Bounty.

What someone takes as abstain here is another limitation of MMA. If you take abstain as sex, then no sex with MMA. This is subjective and some may have a more stricter view such as minimal physical contact or possilbly a less stricter view then sex such as abstaining from the kind of sex that leads to kids (unprotected sex).

Another verse to consider 2237
And if ye divorce them before tamasshunna, but after the fixation of a dower for them, then the half of the dower (Is due to them), unless they remit it or (the man's half) is remitted by him in whose hands is the marriage tie; and the remission (of the man's half) is the nearest to righteousness. And do not forget Liberality between yourselves. For Allah sees well all that ye do.

The root of tamassuhunna
Miim-Siin-Siin = To meet or touch or feel a thing with the hand, touch a thing without intervention or interference, strike or smite, afflict or befall, be distressing or difficult of accomplishment.
massa vb. (1)
perf. act. 2214, 3140, 795, 7188, 7201, 868, 1012, 1012, 1021, 1110, 1288, 1554, 1653, 1767, 1783, 2146, 2183, 2414, 3033, 3841, 398, 3949, 4149, 4150, 4151, 5038, 7020, 7021
impf. act. 280, 2236, 2237, 324, 347, 3120, 3140, 3174, 573, 617, 617, 649, 773, 10107, 1148, 1164, 11113, 1548, 1920, 1945, 2435, 26156, 3349, 3535, 3535, 3618, 3961, 5679
n.vb. 2275, 5448

It may be of interest to note that one of the meanings for this root is touch a thing without intervention or interference perhaps this could be a reference to unprotected sex? Because in protected sex, there is intervention and interference. It may look as though my suggestion here is being forced on but if one looks at verse 2433 and compares it with 2237, does it not then fall into place? Take into account that the only possible meanings for the root of tamassuhunna are
To meet or touch or feel a thing with the hand, touch a thing without intervention or interference, strike or smite, afflict or befall, be distressing or difficult of accomplishment.

From these meanings, i think touch without intervention or interference is the only one we can take as the other one (to meet or touch or feel a thing with the hand) makes less sense and the others i can't see possessing as much relevance and that is why i see it relate to 2433.

So IMO protected sex with an MMA is quranically acceptable. Although i can see others argue that protected sex is not 100% safe, i still think the options that are available in the unlikely case of pregnancy is reasonable. Putting aside personal opinions and focusing purely on the Quran, the verses i feel to be of relevance are there and judgement OF THE VERSES OF THE QURAN should be made without bias.

[Bigmo]

I said the meaning doesn't sound the same. It cannot be a concubine because there isn't such a term in even in the bible. The biblical term is "half wife". And there are legal stipulations with such women, not so with concubines as done in greece and rome and italy.

http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilegesh

Using the greek corrupt understanding of the term is unfounded.

In the Bible
Among the Israelites, it was common for men to acknowledge 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 commanded the same respect and inviolability as the wife, and it was regarded as the deepest dishonour, for the man to whom she belonged, if other hands were laid upon her; David is portrayed as having become greatly dishonoured when his concubines had a sexual relationship with his son Absalom.

Since it was regarded as the highest blessing to have many children, while the greatest curse was childlessness, legitimate wives often gave their maids to their husbands to atone, at least in part, for their own barrenness, as in the cases of Sarah and Hagar, Leah and Zilpah, 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. (although this concept is also challenged in the fact that Abimelech had previously slain 69 of his 70 brothers before he began his reign.) ((Jotham having escaped))

Later biblical figures such as Gideon, David, and Solomon had concubines in addition to many childbearing wives. For example, the Book of Kings claims that Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.

In Judaism
In Judaism, concubines are referred to by the Hebrew term pilegesh. This is etymologically related to the Aramaic phrase palga isha, meaning half-wife. A cognate term later appeared in Greek as the loan word pallax/pallakis.

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. However, 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.

http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concubinage

I am looking at how the Bible and the prophets understood it. European civilizations had no concept of that. Concubines are basically wives but were different due to the ritual process. However its hard for me to see what else MMA can mean other than a concubine. If actually fits the terminolgy of the Koran perfectly. How Europeans understood that is different since polygamy was generally frowned upon. Concubines are only relevant in a polygamous setting and the Koran speaks about Muhammad in a polygamous setting. Because concubines are the same as a wife the Koran does not sepertate sexual relationship with them or the wife. The concept of "mistress" is only relevant in a non polygamous setting. Whats important is the children of the relationship and according to the Bible concubine children were part of the family and were seen as such.

"Abraham gave all he had to Isaac. But to the sons of his concubines Abraham gave gifts, and while he was still living he sent them away from his son Isaac, eastward to the east country." (Genesis 255-6 RSV)

"Now Gideon had seventy sons, his own offspring, for he had many wives. And his concubine who was in Shechem also bore him a son, and he called his name Abimelech." (Judges 830-31 RSV)

Four of the tribes of Israel (Dan and Naphtali, and Gad and Asher) originated from Jacob's concubines Bilhah and Zilpah. See Children of Jacob

"Now Saul had a concubine, whose name was Rizpah, the daughter of Aiah." (2 Samuel 37 RSV)

"And David took more concubines and wives from Jerusalem, after he came from Hebron; and more sons and daughters were born to David." (2 Samuel 513 RSV)

"Ahithophel said to Absalom, "Go in to your father's concubines, whom he has left to keep the house; and all Israel will hear that you have made yourself odious to your father, and the hands of all who are with you will be strengthened." So they pitched a tent for Absalom upon the roof; and Absalom went in to his father's concubines in the sight of all Israel." (2 Samuel 1621-22 RSV)

"King Belshazzar made a great feast for a thousand of his lords, and drank wine in front of the thousand. Belshazzar, when he tasted the wine, commanded that the vessels of gold and of silver which Nebuchadnezzar his father had taken out of the temple in Jerusalem be brought, that the king and his lords, his wives, and his concubines might drink from them." (Daniel 51-2 RSV) (see The Writing On The Wall)

[Bigmo]

I said the meaning doesn't sound the same. It cannot be a concubine because there isn't such a term in even in the bible. The biblical term is "half wife". And there are legal stipulations with such women, not so with concubines as done in greece and rome and italy.

http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilegesh

Using the greek corrupt understanding of the term is unfounded.

I am not inteerested with Greece or Rome. I was talking about how the Bible understood it.

Pilegesh (Hebrew &#8206 is a Hebrew term for a concubine with similar social and legal standing to a recognized wife, often for the purpose of producing offspring.

Concubines are the same thing. Even the Koran speaks of concubines as not fully wives. But they are legitimate partners. This is because the term wives carries a ritual process. Its important to see how the family fits into this. No children of concubines in the Bible were ever seen as illegitimate.

A pilegesh was recognized among the ancient Hebrews and enjoyed the same rights in the house as the legitimate wife. Since it was regarded as the highest blessing to have many children, while the greatest curse was childlessness, legitimate wives often gave their maids to their husbands to atone, at least in part, for their own barrenness, as in the cases of Sarah and Hagar, Leah and Zilpah, Rachel and Bilhah. The concubine commanded the same respect and inviolability as the wife, and it was regarded as the deepest dishonor for the man to whom she belonged if hands were laid upon her.

According to the Babylonian Talmud (Sanh. 21a), the difference between a pilegesh and a full wife was that the latter received a ketubah and her marriage was preceded by a formal betrothal ("kiddushin&quot, which was not the case with the former. According to R. Judah, however, the concubine also received a ketubah, but without the aliment pertaining to it.

Any offspring created as a result of a union between a pilegesh and a man were on equal legal footing with children of the man and his wife.

Biblical examples
Several biblical figures had concubines when they were not able to create natural children with their wives. The most famous example of this was with Abraham and Sarah. Sarah, feeling guilty about her inability to give Abraham children, gave her maidservant Hagar to Abraham. Their union created Ishmael.

Other biblical figures such as Gideon, David, and Solomon had concubines in addition to many childbearing wives. The Book of Kings mentions that Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines; the wives were royal princesses with dowries, while concubines had no dowries.

History
Certain Jewish thinkers, such as Rambam (Maimonides), have declared that the act of acquiring a concubine is prohibited under Jewish law; he has noted that concubines are strictly reserved for kings and that a commoner may not have a concubine or engage in any type of sexual relations outside of a marriage. Others, like the Ramban (Nahmanides), Shmuel ben Uri, and Yaakov Emden, strongly object to this claim.

Some suggest that Rambam's published view was meant to shape a public policy in response to the prohibition of mutah relationships by Sunni Muslims, which are in many ways similar to pilegesh relationships, just as the ban on polygamy by Rabbeinu Gershom was made only subsequently to the Christian prohibition of it that effectively changed the law of the land.

Now the Greeks probaly had no concept of polygamy. Concubines are only relevant in a polygamy. The Koran speaks about Muhammad in a polygamy setting.

[Wakas]

peace nimnimak,

It may be of interest to note that one of the meanings for this root is touch a thing without intervention or interference perhaps this could be a reference to unprotected sex? Because in protected sex, there is intervention and interference.

Can you tell us what evidence you have of what you refer to as "protected sex" was practiced during the time of revelation? In fact, why not let us know the earliest evidence you have for this, in general.

Take into account that the only possible meanings for the root of tamassuhunna are
To meet or touch or feel a thing with the hand, touch a thing without intervention or interference, strike or smite, afflict or befall, be distressing or difficult of accomplishment.

This just shows you do not know what it is or how to use the resource you refer to (i.e. PRL). Can you tell us where PRL states it is a complete representation of Classical Arabic Dictionaries or its content contains ALL possible meanings?

This will further help us assess the "quality" of your study, and thus the "quality" of your findings.

NB I did not want to comment, as I said previously, however your post may mislead others as to what PRL is. Hopefully most who use it actually know what it represents, unlike some.

[Bosnian_Thinker]

Peace all
peace

This is an article i wrote. My first on a topic in Quran. If you read it, please let me know what you think

The 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.

Unless you take the root Zay-Nun-Ya or Fa-Ha-Shin to literally mean premarital sex, the prohibition of sex before marriage is not stated in the Quran. There are also no verses in the Quran where sex is made exclusive to marriages. Thus sex is not exclusive to marriages and can be done outside of wedlock. The fact that sex is not explicitly prohibited does not mean that it is ok to have sex with anyone under any circumstance. The Quran places restrictions and limitations which prevent such a scenario. There are two limitations which I will point out

The first limitation I will explain via the following Verses of 235-6

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. However this presents us with a problem as anyone could be committed to an individual by oath. Thus theoretically if an orphan is committed to you by oath.....then he can have access to your private parts.
This is where the second limitation comes in

Fa-Ha-Shin which has the possible following meanings
became excessive/immoderate/enormous/exorbitant/overmuch/beyond measure, foul/bad/evil/unseemly/indecency/abominable, lewd/gross/obscene, committing excess which is forbidden, transgress the bounds/limits, avaricious, adultery/fornication.

An example of the usage of Fa-Ha-Shin can be seen in 1732 And do not come near adultery, for it is lewdness and an evil path.

If we take lewdness into account, then it becomes clear that showing your private parts to an orphan who is committed to you by oath is forbidden (unless you have a really good and un-lewd reason to do so which is very unlikely) Thus (though highly unlikely) no one can claim that they were showing their private parts to their orphan and then justify themselves with verses such as 235-6. Such an act will go strongly against reason and heart in which their justification becomes invalid just by that alone. Nevertheless for the purposes of this article, it is an act of lewdness indicated by reason and heart and thus prohibited by the Quran. Thus this takes out the possibility of all gross acts such as the example given.
I will now discuss some of the possible objections to my argument.

One possible objection to my argument, is the following verse 2433

And let those who are not able to marry continue to be chaste until God enriches them of His Bounty. And if those who are maintained by your oaths seek to consummate the marriage, then document it with them if you find that they are ready, and give them from the wealth of God which He has bestowed upon you. And do not force your young women to need if they have desired to be independent, in order that you may make a gain in the goods of this worldly life. And if anyone has compelled them, then for their compulsion, God is Forgiving, Merciful.

It requests of those who are unable to marry to remain chaste implying that they should not have sex until they have married. I disagree with this translation and understanding for the following reason

If we look at a word by word translation, the word chaste actually isn?t there. What?s actually used is abstain. But his could mean to abstain from something different to sex such as abstaining from unlawful sex and not sex as a whole.

Another possible objection
It may be argued that the permission to expose the private parts to those you are committed to by oath given in the Quran does not include the permission to have sex. This is not the case as in order for something to be prohibited, it needs to be stated in the Quran. If it is not stated, then it is not prohibited and as sex is not prohibited beyond the limits already discussed, then it is permitted. Consider the following If we are to say that the private parts (in the case of those who are committed to an individual by oath) are for exposure only and nothing more, then this becomes problematic. Imagine a surgeon attempting to operate on an individual?s private part. The surgeon can see the private part of the individual as the surgeon is committed to the individual by oath however the surgeon will not be able to go beyond seeing the private part (even though the individual has consented to operating on the private part) and thus be unable to a operate on the individual. This would be the case if we were to accept that the private parts can only be exposed and nothing more can be done to them.

Moving on....
The concept of lewdness is subjective. What may appear lewd to an individual may appear normal to another. Consider a one night stand. Some will consider the act as lewd and some will think it acceptable. Topics such as a one night stand are controversial and open to debate. However when the act of sex is done between a couple who are both morally upright and are comfortable with each other and are not rushing one another and it does not go against their reason and heart prior to the act, then I see no controversy in such a case. I doubt that in such a case there is any lewdness. If anyone objects to this, please indicate the lewdness you pick out from this.

In conclusion, pre-marital sex is not prohibited in the Quran. There are clear limitations and subjective limitations. Issues such as a one night stand may possibly be justified in the light of the Quran. As outrageous as this claim may appear to some, I truly believe that it may hold some truth.

The end.

Some addiotional points

In a discussion with a friend, when attempting to argue against one night stands, I could not get anywhere as his argument was clearly the more reasonable and stronger. I will present a revised summary of our discussion What could be wrong with two healthy (no disabilities such as down-syndrome or any influence of alcohol) and responsible people agreeing to have sex on one night even though they have just met on the night? I responded by saying that that would make sex meaningless and without passion. But would it necessarily do this? I cannot tell. And even if it does, how could it be wrong when both have agreed to it and it?s not harming anyone else? (please note this was an argument with my friend which I have attempted to summarise. What I have written down isn?t exactly what was said but rather the key points pointed out and discussed. My purpose of this example was to show the importance of reason and how someone like my friend could justify himself in the sight of God)

I could not answer him and considered that he might be right and that my rejection of his view is purely based on my upbringing and not of my reasoning. My heart did object to it at first but I tried to view the act in a different and more positive light in order to be unbiased, and my heart did not object to it anymore. Before i was viewing this act in a negative light and that is why i believe my heart objected to it then. But both scenarios that i attmepted to comprehend can take place in reality. The negative more likely to occure then the positive. I dislike the idea of a one night stand personally.

If I am not mistaken, virginity in the Iranian culture is seen as a good thing and I believe that this is similar amongst Quranists. Ironically virginity in some places and in the sight of some people is seen as a bad thing. With the use of reason and the Quran, hopefully we will get to the truth.

peace

Selam )

Verse 2433 clearly points out that those who are maintained by your oaths are those whom you are engaged to. It does not include everybody maintained by any oath you have made. That would not be logical at all.

[nimnimak_11]

Peace Wakas

Can you tell us what evidence you have of what you refer to as "protected sex" was practiced during the time of revelation? In fact, why not let us know the earliest evidence you have for this, in general.

Can you explain the relevance of this?

This just shows you do not know what it is or how to use the resource you refer to (i.e. PRL). Can you tell us where PRL states it is a complete representation of Classical Arabic Dictionaries or its content contains ALL possible meanings?

Nowhere. But I think the only thing this shows is that i was unaware of this fact not the other things you have suggested.

This will further help us assess the "quality" of your study, and thus the "quality" of your findings.

So long as it is a fair assessment (which takes into account all things) without bias no problem.

NB I did not want to comment, as I said previously, however your post may mislead others as to what PRL is. Hopefully most who use it actually know what it represents, unlike some.

If truly your intention of commenting was preventing the misleading of others with regards to what PRL is, then a simple sentence stating what PRL is would have sufficed. You did more than this and commented (despited your claim of not wanting to claim) which i think conveys you did want to comment. It is however not so fair to comment or criticise when and where it suits one to do so. I am talking about a person not responding to a comment or criticism when it suits them with the excuse of not wanting to discuss or argue anymore only to come back and argue sometime later avoiding what was directed at them.

[nimnimak_11]

Selam )

Verse 2433 clearly points out that those who are maintained by your oaths are those whom you are engaged to. It does not include everybody maintained by any oath you have made. That would not be logical at all.

Salam Bosnian thinker peace

In the case of 2433 it looks like it is talking of someone your engaged to and i agree with this. But when looking at for example this

3353 O you who believe, do not enter the homes of the prophet unless you are invited to a meal, without you forcing such an invitation. But if you are invited, you may enter. And when you finish eating, you shall leave, without staying to wait for a narrative. This used to bother the prophet, and he was shy to tell you. But God does not shy away from the truth. And if you ask his wives for something, ask them from behind a barrier. This is purer for your hearts and their hearts. And it is not for you to harm the messenger of God, nor that you should marry his wives after him. This is indeed a gross offence with God.
3354 If you reveal anything, or hide it, God is fully aware of all things.
3355 There is no sin upon them before their fathers, or their sons, or their brothers, or the sons of their brothers, or the sons of their sisters, or their women, or those who are maintained by their oaths. And be aware of God, for God is witness over all things.

Basically what I am getting at is. It is not pure for men to ask the Prophet's wives "something" unless behind a barrier.... EXCEPT for the Prophet's Wives fathers, sons etc. and MMAs (see the Arabic, it is clearly about them). So verse 3355 is implying that the Prophet's wives had MMAs!

then i think it's safe to conclude that MMA must also entail other meanings.

[Wakas]

peace nimnimak,

The relevance is you have possibly inserted an impossible translation into the verse, i.e. something highly unlikely or not invented at the time, hence the request for evidence. Quite simple really.

But I think the only thing this shows is that i was unaware of this fact not the other things you have suggested.

Thanks for making clear to the forum you were unaware what PRL is, and thus used it in your studies and posted views without knowing what the resource you were using actually represented.

By the way, I felt I answered your Qs to a reasonable level. I am more than happy for forum members to read our exchanges and make up their own minds.

[nimnimak_11]

Peace Wakas

The relevance is you have possibly inserted an impossible translation into the verse, i.e. something highly unlikely or not invented at the time, hence the request for evidence. Quite simple really.

You are refering to the past in a way which is not relevant in the right way. What I suggeted was that if we for exmaple take the verse to mean And if ye divorce them before touching them without intervention or interference..... it is a closer reference to sex than all the other meanings (provided by PRL) This would apply to the past whilst also applying to now. However in the case of now, there are condoms which intervene and interfere. Thus whilst it applies to the past, there is slightly more it can apply to with respect to today. This is what i meant by the irrelevance of the existence of condoms in the past.

Thanks for making clear to the forum you were unaware what PRL is, and thus used it in your studies and posted views without knowing what the resource you were using actually represented.

To state "unaware what PRL is" is surely different to acknowledging that i was unaware that PRL is not a complete representation of Classical Arabic Dictionaries or its content contains ALL possible meanings. Is it not? How have you reasoned here?

By the way, I felt I answered your Qs to a reasonable level. I am more than happy for forum members to read our exchanges and make up their own minds.

If that's how you feel. I don't see the point in pointing things out from our exchanges. It is there to be seen.

[Bosnian_Thinker]

Salam Bosnian thinker peace

In the case of 2433 it looks like it is talking of someone your engaged to and i agree with this. But when looking at for example this

then i think it's safe to conclude that MMA must also entail other meanings.

Selam peace peace

I ran across this verse while I was studying the other day. I am kind of confused about this. Verse 2433 clearly points out that those maintained by your oaths are those you are engaged to; it is possible that there may be additional meanings. Also, if the verse you quoted for me is meant for women in general and not the prophet's wives, then we would not need to talk about this, but it kind of seems to me that it is referring to them. I'll have to do more research on this subject.

[Nafi]

Well about MMA, its perfectly acceptable that it has multiple meanings, which is typical of old arabic.