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

Mino-taur

Salaam Niminak

I would like to retract everything i have said as i did not fully understand what MMA meant. Also, i feel i need to study the Quran, and the way of Allah a lot more.

Thanks.

nimnimak_11

Salaam Niminak

I would like to retract everything i have said as i did not fully understand what MMA meant. Also, i feel i need to study the Quran, and the way of Allah a lot more.

Thanks.

I hope you succeed

nimnimak_11

Peace

I said I was going to do a summary of the thread on Quran with regards to the topic of Ma Malekat Aymunkum (MMA) but I keep running into something new and also i've been preoccupied with other stuff so i havn't give this much priority to be honest. I'l post what I have right now.

Some important verses with regards to MMA

235-6 (We can unguard our private parts to the MMA)
423-24 (Cannot marry the Muhsinat women unless/until they are MMA)
425 (This verse looks to me like it?s 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.

The strongest proof against MMA exclusively meaning fianc? or girlfriend in my opnion is the following (which i have quoted from Aalmakto?s post)

This is what he posted

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 this, I don?t think that it would make sense for MMA to exclusively mean a girlfriend/boyfriend or fianc?. That would then mean that the prophet's wives had boyfriends, which appears to make no sense. It has been suggested that MMA has multiple meanings. I agree and i think that a finace or boyfriend/girlfriend 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 (fahisha)

Another verse that was posted as an objections was 2433 More specifically this part
2433 ?....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 stricter view such as minimal physical contact or possibly a less strict view than sex such as abstaining from the kind of sex that leads to kids (unprotected sex).
My personal opinion here is that abstain is referring to marriage. So basically ?let those who are not able to marry continue to abstain..? As in abstain from marriage until they have the resources in place (such as a house or whatever else is important for marriage) which is suggested by 2433 in the part ?until God enriches them of Its bounty?. I personally don't see how being enriched by the God's bounty relates to sex in this particular case thus I don't see how abstain could be referring to sex.

Another verse to consider is 2237
And if ye divorce them before tamasshunna, but after the fixation of a dower for them, then 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.
You might also want to check out the following links for more details on the potential meanings of this root
http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume7/00000239.pdf (start at the far right of this page when it begins with Mim-Siin)
http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume7/00000240.pdf

In 2237 the word tamassuhunna is important. If the word means touch, then we need to determine what kind of touch is being talked about here. It would be highly unreasonable to think that any sort of physical contact is constituted as tamassuhunna in the context of 2237. Here is a cross-reference of the term in the Quran

http//corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=mss#(22376)

In 347 it is clear that Mary is referring to the sort of touch that potentially leads to a child
?She said "My Lord, how can I have a son when no human hasyamsasn (touch(ed)) me?" He said "It is thus that God creates what He wills, when He decrees a command, He merely says to it 'Be,' and it is.??

Thus from this we might say that in 2237, tamassuhunna refers to the sort of touch that leads to a child. This means unprotected sex. However since protected sex does not 100 percent guarantee to prevent potential pregnancies and is thus not 100 percent protection, then it might be the case that it is not a sufficient measure.

Despite 2237, it can still be argued that sex is not exclusive to marriage. This verse highlights that should it be the case that one marries, then these considerations and guidelines will enter. If one however does not marry, then these consideration to not apply. But I think it more reasonable to place the limit of 100% protection on sex with MMA then not and 2237 can be used to defend this.

Consider the following verse 424 And the independent (muhsinat) from the women, except those maintained by your oaths; the book of God over you; and permitted for you is what is beyond this, if you are seeking with your money to be independent, not for illicit sex. As for those whom you have already had joy with, then you shall give them their dowries as an obligation. There is no sin upon you for what you agree on after the obligation. God is Knowledgeable, Wise.

Here i think it is emphasising that when you approach someone for marriage (since the whole context is about who is permissible for marriage) it must be the case that your intention must be that you use your resources for the sake of establishing independence along side them not just having sex with them. Such a mentality is unacceptable for marriage. But is it unacceptable with an MMA? I personally don't think so provided that whatever is done between the two guarantees that no child will come of it.

There is more on this that was discussed on the thread. I'l post it later on when I have looked at it and organised it properly.

nimnimak_11

Another comment in the forums important for a summary of the thread

The comment was directed at 2433 ?....And let those who are not able to marry continue to abstain until God enriches them of His Bounty.?

I don't understand nimnimak_11, if they are not able to marry they'll obviously refrain from marriage since they are not able to marry? That is what "not being able to marry" would mean as it is? It is obviously pointing at something other than refraining from marriage as not being able to marry automatically means that they can't but refrain from marriage. You can refrain if you have the option to do something.

Here it was suggested that only those who have the means to marry, can marry thus the abstaining here refers to something other than marriage since the individual who lacks the means for marriage cannot marry and it is thus impossible. If this is the case, then obviously it must follow that abstain most likely refers to sex and so abstinence from sex is necessary. But given other verses 235-6 and the usage of the word touch, I believe that this only applies to unprotected sex which would then make sense as to ungaurd our private parts to our MMA and why the muhsinat and the fatayat must be of MMA before marrying them.

Whilst I was in agreement with the above comment in the past, I changed mind. The verse is referring to those who don't have the means for marriage. Is the word means in this verse referring to necessary requirements for marriage such as witnesses and a relevant authority to enforce the marriage or is it referring to something like wealth? I think that it refers to something like wealth since witness and other conditions are almost always available and so marriage is possible as opposed to impossible. This is further implied by the following 2433 "...until God enriches them of His Bounty"

So here the means are pretty much always there for marriage. What isn't always there is the wealth and other like factors that contribute to a potentially good marriage. Thus in my opinion abstain refers to marriage because even thought it is possible to get married, we should abstain until the God enriches us of It's bounty because that is the best time or the appropriate time to marry.

nimnimak_11

Other verses of interests

2222 And they ask you about the menstruations? Say "It is harmful, so keep away (sexually abstain?) from the women during the menstruations, and do not approach them until they are cleansed. When they are cleansed, then you may approach them as God has commanded you." God loves the repenters and He loves the cleansed.

Here the word zawj is not used. Thus this limit must also refer to MMA also.

2226 For those who abstain from their women, they shall be given four months. If they cease, then God is Forgiving, Merciful.

It might be of interest to note that the word translated as abstain is yu'lna which in this case it appears to mean "swear off"

the root of the word is Alif-Lam-Waw = fall short of doing the requisite/flag/remiss, slow/tardy/languid/weak, did not leave/quit/cease from/omit/neglect, swear, possessor, one who is superintended an affair, as far as/until, in addition to/joined to any other thing, to me, decreed against/revealed/on the

http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume1/00000120.pdf
http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume1/00000121.pdf
http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume1/00000122.pdf
http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume1/00000123.pdf

2227 And if they insist on the divorce, then God is Hearer, Knowledgeable.

In 2226 it also uses nisa as oppossed to zawj and 2227 mentions divorce.

2228 And those divorced shall wait for three menstruation periods; and it is not lawful for them to conceal what God has created in their wombs, if they believe in God and the Last Day. And their husbands (wabulatuhunna) would then have just cause to return together, if they both wish to reconcile. And the obligations owed to them are to be fulfilled, as are the obligations owed by them. But the men will have a greater responsibility over them in this. And God is Noble, Wise.

2228 mentions divorce again. This appears make divorce as something that's exclusive to marriage since husbands are mentioned which implies marriage

2229 The divorce is allowed twice. So, either they remain together equitably, or they part ways with goodness. And it is not lawful for you to take back anything you have given them unless you fear that they will not uphold the boundaries of God. So if you fear that they will not uphold the boundaries of God, then there is no sin upon them for what is given back. These are the boundaries of God so do not transgress them. And whoever shall transgress the boundaries of God, then these are the wicked.

2230 So if he divorces her again, then she will not be lawful for him until after she has married a different husband (zawj); if he divorces her; then there is no sin that they come back together if they think they will uphold the boundaries of God. These are the boundaries of God, He clarifies them for a people who know.

Interestingly here the term for husband used is zawj where as back in 2228 it was wabulatuhunna

2231 And if you have divorced the women, and they have reached their required interim period, then either you remain together equitably, or part ways equitably. And do not reconcile with them so you can harm them out of animosity; whoever does so is doing wrong to his soul; and do not take the revelations of God as mockery. And remember the blessings of God upon you, and what was sent down to you of the Book and the wisdom, He warns you with it. And be aware of God and know that God is knowledgeable of all things.

2232 And if you divorce the women, and they reach their required interim period, then do not make difficulty for them if they wish to remarry their husbands if they have amicably agreed among themselves out of what is best. This is to remind any of you who believe in God and the Last Day, this is better for you and purer; and God knows while you do not know.

2233 And the divorced mothers are allowed to suckle their children two full years, if they wish to complete the suckling. And the man for whom the child is born is responsible for both their provisions and clothing equitably. A soul is not burdened except with what it can bear. No mother shall be harmed because of her child, nor shall a father be harmed because of his child. And for the guardian is the same requirement. So if they wish to separate out of mutual agreement and counsel, then there is no sin upon them. And if you want to hire nursing mothers, then there is no sin upon you if you return what you have been given equitably. And be aware of God, and know that God is watching over what you do.

2234 And for those of you whose lives are terminated and they leave widows behind, then their widows will have a required interim period of four months and ten. So when they reach their required interim, then there is no sin upon you for what they do with themselves in goodness. And God is Expert to what you do.

2235 And there is no sin upon you if you openly propose marriage to the women, or you keep it between yourselves. God knows that you will be thinking about them, but do not meet them secretly, unless you have something righteous to say. And do not finalize the marriage contract until the book interim is reached. And know that God knows what is in your souls, so be aware of Him, and know that God is Forgiving, Compassionate.

Its been suggested that these verses imply that sex is exclusive to marriage since there are no similar guidelines given with regards to sexual relations with the MMA. Thus it's worth mentioning in the summary.

Sir_Comcision

I don't know, seems a little strange how the Koran seems to take on completely different meanings and acts which were interpreted as haram for centuries seem to magically become permissible once the Koran gets completely dissected as the roots of certain words are taken as more reliable a guide to interpreting the book than virtually universally accepted definitions.

Faithful-Jinn

I don't know, seems a little strange how the Koran seems to take on completely different meanings and acts which were interpreted as haram for centuries seem to magically become permissible once the Koran gets completely dissected as the roots of certain words are taken as more reliable a guide to interpreting the book than virtually universally accepted definitions.

Good point. I don't trust this at all.

johan

Salam All,

I haven't read all the posts, so please bear with me..

what I don't get it is that why would the prophet Yousuf(Joseph) AS cares so much about his chastity and not take the offer of his mistress if it wasn't because he want's to guard his farj without a wedlock?

Salam,
Johan

nimnimak_11

Salam All,

I haven't read all the posts, so please bear with me..

what I don't get it is that why would the prophet Yousuf(Joseph) AS cares so much about his chastity and not take the offer of his mistress if it wasn't because he want's to guard his farj without a wedlock?

Salam,
Johan

Salam Johan

1225 And as they rushed towards the door, she tore his shirt from behind; and they found her master at the door. She said "What is the punishment for he who wanted evil for your family? Is it not that he be imprisoned or punished painfully?"

1230 And some women in the city said "The wife of the governor is trying to seduce her young man from himself; she is taken by love. We see her clearly misguided."

In the case of Joseph it would have been adultry since it was the wife of the governor who was trying to seduce him.
There are some issues though. In 1230 the term that is translated to wife is im'ra-atu. The root of it is mm r hamza. It's not clear that this means wife but in other verses where the same term is used, it is interpreted to mean wife and no other meaning seems to fix the context of those verses.

With regards to the prophet it is not clear whether he had previously slept with other single women or not when he was being seduced. It could be said that in this case he knew it was wrong because it would be sleeping with someone else's wife which is obviously disgraceful.

nimnimak_11

I don't know, seems a little strange how the Koran seems to take on completely different meanings and acts which were interpreted as haram for centuries seem to magically become permissible once the Koran gets completely dissected as the roots of certain words are taken as more reliable a guide to interpreting the book than virtually universally accepted definitions.

MMA is pretty clear in its meaning. 235-6 places restrictions on whom we can unguard our private parts to (zawj and MMA) 423-25 makes clear that we can't marry the muhsinat without them being MMA first (this when taken with 235-6 implies a relationship in which it is permissible for the private parts to be unguarded)

Hypothetically (as far as i can see) there are 2 ways in which the Quran may be prohibiting sex with the MMA

the word fahisha (lewdness) or zina. If any of them necessarily and explicitly entail any sexual act outside of marriage (nikah) then there is a restriction via this word.
2221-2237 appropriately and adequately implies that sex is exclusive for marriage.

I'm pretty sure that 1) is unlikely to be true but someone skilled in arabic and with good Quranic knowledge would need to verify that as i cannot.

with regards to 2) i'm not so sure. Cross-referencing the word tamassuhunna (touched) which occurs in 2237 lead to 347 where in which marry asks how can i have a child when no man has (touched) me which lead me to believe that the tammsuhunna used in 2237 refers to the sort of touch that leads to kids (unprotected sex) whether thisentails protected sex or sexual acts that do no involve penetration is something that i don't believe at the moment and because of MMA and 423-25 I think it's likely that sexual acts that make the possibility of a child 0 are permissible outside of marriage.

This is more a case of cross-referencing terms rather than assessing roots.

nimnimak_11

Double post accident

nimnimak_11

The important question regarding sex is whether the focus of the Quran is on the sperm entering the woman or just the act of sex or perhaps both. I doubt that it is both since for a woman to have sex with someone or to just have someone else's sperm put in her surgically are two entirely different things.

Is it Quranically acceptable for an unmarried woman to get pregnant without having sex (sperm donor). From 2221-237 it can be argued no it is not acceptable.

2233 And the divorced mothers are allowed to suckle their children two full years, if they wish to complete the suckling. And the man for whom the child is born is responsible for both their provisions and clothing equitably. A soul is not burdened except with what it can bear. No mother shall be harmed because of her child, nor shall a father be harmed because of his child. And for the guardian is the same requirement. So if they wish to separate out of mutual agreement and counsel, then there is no sin upon them. And if you want to hire nursing mothers, then there is no sin upon you if you return what you have been given equitably. And be aware of God, and know that God is watching over what you do.

2228 And those divorced shall wait for three menstruation periods; and it is not lawful for them to conceal what God has created in their wombs, if they believe in God and the Last Day. And their husbands would then have just cause to return together, if they both wish to reconcile. And the obligations owed to them are to be fulfilled, as are the obligations owed by them. But the men will have a greater responsibility over them in this. And God is Noble, Wise.

If in these verses, the father is also the husband then the prohibition may be implied. If this is not the case, then there is no prohibition on sperm donors.

johan

Salam Johan

1225 And as they rushed towards the door, she tore his shirt from behind; and they found her master at the door. She said "What is the punishment for he who wanted evil for your family? Is it not that he be imprisoned or punished painfully?"

1230 And some women in the city said "The wife of the governor is trying to seduce her young man from himself; she is taken by love. We see her clearly misguided."

In the case of Joseph it would have been adultry since it was the wife of the governor who was trying to seduce him.
There are some issues though. In 1230 the term that is translated to wife is im'ra-atu. The root of it is mm r hamza. It's not clear that this means wife but in other verses where the same term is used, it is interpreted to mean wife and no other meaning seems to fix the context of those verses.

With regards to the prophet it is not clear whether he had previously slept with other single women or not when he was being seduced. It could be said that in this case he knew it was wrong because it would be sleeping with someone else's wife which is obviously disgraceful.

salam nimnimak,

imho marriage/wedlock is a way to proclaim to the public that so and so is my spouse.
if without my consent my spouse commits adultry then it's deemed immoral..we can agree to this..

let's say we exchange the notion of wedlock with that of gf/bf..
how would anyone know whether one has another gf/bf in he(r/s) "portfolio" if it's not known by the public?
would it be immoral for another to have sex with you even though they didn't know that you are with another gf/bf?
wouldn't it just causes too much complication if publicizing your relation with another is made irrelevant?

peace

IAMOP

I can't remember if I posted this earlier but I'll post it anyway.

The clearest argument regarding who to punish for zina is in the example of a person and their legal partner, and a third party who cheats with one of them.

If the third party has no knowledge of the partnership then if 'zina' is restricted to adultery, the question of whether to punish this person for cheating with becomes ambiguous the person who has been betrayed has experienced evil from TWO people, not one and both of those committed it on purpose. Of course if a person fled their marriage and married another person without notifying the new partner about the prior marriage then the blame is wholly on that person.

Conversely if zina applies totally to any form of non-official relationship then the person cheating on their partner AND the one cheating with them are to be punished. This is straightforward, simple and arguably perfectly just in the sense that there is no grey area where an innocent person may be found to be punished nor can a guilty one feign innocence and get away with it.

As such it is then self-evident that all sexual contact is strictly restricted to relationships backed by official recognition. No secrecy, no pump'n'dump.

noshield30

IAMOP, your theory doesn't seem to hold water. Married men/women can still lie to people that they want to cheat with and claim that they're not married, and bf/gf relationships do not have to be secret, in fact most bf/gf relationships are made known to almost everyone close to them which includes parents. This is especially true in the west, where my non muslim friends are in a relationship, almost every one of their acquaintances will know about it. Your view that marriage=widely known, relationships=secret is obviously not true.

noshield30

Sir Comcision, whole civilisations used to believe in human sacrifice, and in greek gods who live in mount olympus, and in multiple headed hindu gods. History has showed us just because the majority of people believe in something doesnt mean its the truth. Whole civilisations have been wrong before about all sorts of things. And for long periods of time too.

johan

IAMOP, your theory doesn't seem to hold water. Married men/women can still lie to people that they want to cheat with and claim that they're not married, and bf/gf relationships do not have to be secret, in fact most bf/gf relationships are made known to almost everyone close to them which includes parents. This is especially true in the west, where my non muslim friends are in a relationship, almost every one of their acquaintances will know about it. Your view that marriage=widely known, relationships=secret is obviously not true.

salam noshield,

what's the significance of having the Quran mention the concept of imra'ah for say al-3azeez and/or 3imraan, etc?

peace,
johan

nimnimak_11

salam nimnimak,

imho marriage/wedlock is a way to proclaim to the public that so and so is my spouse.
if without my consent my spouse commits adultry then it's deemed immoral..we can agree to this..

let's say we exchange the notion of wedlock with that of gf/bf..
how would anyone know whether one has another gf/bf in he(r/s) "portfolio" if it's not known by the public?
would it be immoral for another to have sex with you even though they didn't know that you are with another gf/bf?
wouldn't it just causes too much complication if publicizing your relation with another is made irrelevant?

peace

Salam Johan

Could that not apply to marriages as well? Men or women could hide their marital status (though not with as much ease as they could hide a non-marrital relationship) Say I was married and I was attracted to some girl. I hide my ring and pursue this girl and then portray myself as single and she believes me and i sleep with her. This is the same as me hiding the fact that I have a girlfriend.

Your right in the sense that if sex is exclusive to marriage and everyone upheld this view and only had sex within marriage, then it would be hard to lie and deceive since documents would have to be exposed when trying to marry for the second time. It would be almost impossible to lie and say this is my first marriage.

But this only works if everyone subscribed to this view. If not everyone did, then someone who is married could lie and deceive their way into unlawful sex just as they could if they had a girlfriend.

Similarly if everyone was honest or sufficiently righteous, then they would not lie about their current relationship status and thus there would be no deception.

What some may consider as a serious problem with MMA here is that it is not clear whether one has to be limited to one sexual partner at a time. For example if it was agreed between the two that each can have different MMAs, then I don't see any further restriction is put on by the Quran. Obviously if someone got in a relationship and the agreement was that we don't see other people, then that person is obliged to not see other people and since this is something that would enter the hearts depending on how serious the relationship is, the breaking of such oaths would be obviously wrong.

nimnimak_11

salam noshield,

what's the significance of having the Quran mention the concept of imra'ah for say al-3azeez and/or 3imraan, etc?

peace,
johan

Salam Johan

Any chance you could point to a verse where in which those words occur. I am not an arabic speaker and without any verses i have no hope of studying those words and why they are possibly there for.

Thanks

nimnimak_11

I can't remember if I posted this earlier but I'll post it anyway.

The clearest argument regarding who to punish for zina is in the example of a person and their legal partner, and a third party who cheats with one of them.

If the third party has no knowledge of the partnership then if 'zina' is restricted to adultery, the question of whether to punish this person for cheating with becomes ambiguous the person who has been betrayed has experienced evil from TWO people, not one and both of those committed it on purpose. Of course if a person fled their marriage and married another person without notifying the new partner about the prior marriage then the blame is wholly on that person.

Conversely if zina applies totally to any form of non-official relationship then the person cheating on their partner AND the one cheating with them are to be punished. This is straightforward, simple and arguably perfectly just in the sense that there is no grey area where an innocent person may be found to be punished nor can a guilty one feign innocence and get away with it.

As such it is then self-evident that all sexual contact is strictly restricted to relationships backed by official recognition. No secrecy, no pump'n'dump.

Salam IAMOP

What's wrong with relationships being backed by legitimate consent? In your two examples of zina, why would the person who has married be free from punishment whilst the person who has not married be punishable even though they were both deceived?