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

Wakas

peace/salaam,

In response to noshield30 and yourself;

Suppose a wife cheats on her husband with Bob. Bob does not know the woman is married.
From the husband's point of view, both his wife AND Bob caused him pain, they are both to blame. God designed our instincts to feel resent for the 3rd party. So if Bob gets off scot-free, there is resent which God himself placed there for a reason.

Case A Sex outside of officially recognised relationship is permissible
Wife - GUILTY OF ZINA
Bob - NOT GUILTY

Case B Sex ONLY within official relationships permitted
Wife - GUILTY OF ZINA (adultery)
Bob - GUILTY OF ZINA by default (fornication)

In case B, Bob can ONLY have sex with the wife if he marries her. If the wife does not tell Bob, it does not matter. Bob MUST marry her and when he goes to do this, the offical registry (or those with authority incl. family) will show that the wife is lying about her status. Hence in this case, Bob retains his innocence. Even if the wife lies and Bob somehow marries her, he is still indisputably innocent. The wife is not in a position to transgress because the system pushes BOTH of them into a stalemate. Zina is a two party crime and the quranic commandment is that BOTH parties are punished. One person cannot be guilty of zina alone because it takes two persons to do the deed.

You can take "marriage" to mean any quranically legitimate relationship. I hope you understand now. Noshield30, please read my posts carefully, you are reading things that are simply not there. This reasoning is axiomatically indisputable, it is a proof by contradiction. Forget what MMA means for now and consider purely the guilt of the outsider to the marriage. The fatal flaw in system A is self-evident. On judgement day it is rather plain that God who designed man to feel hurt by both parties in zina will thusly abase both participants. There is no other way to account fully for the evil committed (leaving forgiveness aside).

We are not concerned with what people are doing, what we are concerned with here is how to have a perfect system. A perfect system cannot be ambiguous and allow the innocent to be punished or the guilty to go free.

Nice angle.

nimnimak_11

Peace IAMOP

God designed our instincts to feel resent for the 3rd party. So if Bob gets off scot-free, there is resent which God himself placed there for a reason.

I think that in most cases this will be the case (anger at third party). But is it a justified hatred? It depends.

Case A Sex outside of officially recognised relationship is permissible
Wife - GUILTY OF ZINA
Bob - NOT GUILTY

Case B Sex ONLY within official relationships permitted
Wife - GUILTY OF ZINA (adultery)
Bob - GUILTY OF ZINA by default (fornication)

In your examples the only difference between cases A and B is that in a society that practices B, the odds of someone deceiving a third party into thinking that they are not in a relationship is significantly less than that of a society that practices A. For this reason I do agree that it could be said that in society B, there will be less resent towards Bob for they know by default that he was sufficiently careful because of the low odds of deception by the wife in society B. But this is not to say that he is indisputably innocent. Hypothetically you could argue that for various reasons, Bob was in fact under the impression that the wife may in fact be married. Odds of this are low but it is not impossible to render it indisputable.

Important to note is that in the conditions of society A you could have someone who is sufficiently careful also. For example someone might ask around or check in some kind of database whether wife x is a Mrs or Miss or Ms. In court Bob might then say I got in touch with the registry offices and they told me she was single. Other pre-cautions could also fall into place before engaging in any kind of sexual activity which would easily render Bob in society A as sufficiently cautious.

Thus whilst the conditions in society B are more strict thus lowering the possibility of deception, this does not entail that the conditions in society A are wrong. For example some countries will have harsher punishments for stealing than others and thus they will lower their odds of stealing in their respective country. But this does not render their punishments right. Some punishments may be unreasonably harsh.

You can take "marriage" to mean any quranically legitimate relationship.

From my understanding that is not how it is. There are specific verses that place certain requirements before one can approach their MMA for nikah. Thus a relationship with MMA and zawj are two different arrangement that are both Quranically legitimate (if this understanding of MMA is correct) thus marriage cannot mean any Quranically legitimate relationship.

On judgement day it is rather plain that God who designed man to feel hurt by both parties in zina will thusly abase both participants.

I disagree with this. If I understand you correctly your view is that the level of caution exercised in society A is too low and that in society B, by default it is sufficient to render the third party not guilty. I don't believe that this warrants and outright ban on sex before marriage. If there is a wife that will cheat with someone, then the wife is at fault and the husband who married such a wife was unlucky or unwise in his choice of wife. It may even be argued that if such a wife exists, it may be better that the disease in her heart is exposed. It may also be argued that sex before marriage is beneficial in the sense that it would better help someone judge to whom they should commit to for the rest of their live with regards to starting a family and other marriage like goals.

God will judge whether the likes of Bob in societies A or B was cautious enough before engaging in sex with their MMA. We cannot assume that Bob was sufficiently cautious in society B or A and I think the imposition of the conditions in society B are restrictive of the rights and freedom of individuals and they potentially prohibit a beneficial thing for reasons that are not good enough.

Zina is a two party crime and the quranic commandment is that BOTH parties are punished.

Consider the following

We punish the person who was married and the third party who was not married
We punish the person who was married and the third party who was married to them

If we must do 1 (based on there needing to be two to commit the deed thus two to be punished), then surely we must also do 2 for it is the same. I am not sure what you mean by stalemate but if we consider the third party in two as legally married simply for the reason that he was unaware that there was a husband, then this is the same reason Bob would give in 1) that he had lawful sex for he did not know there was a husband. Thus there is no core underlying difference if I understand you correctly. If I have got this wrong please correct me on this.

I think for a person to be unaware that there is a husband in the picture is sufficient to render them as not guilty of any fahisha or zina. Even if we say that Bob was aware that the wife was married but he himself was not married, then I think this constitutes fahisha for Bob and zina for the wife because Bob is not married whereas the wife is and I think there is a clear difference between the level of wrong on Bob's side if he was in fact married and aware as opposed to not married and aware.

It could be argued that according to the Quran, you only punish both parties for zina, when they have both committed zina. As in the two who committed the act were both Married to someone else.

242 The adulteress and the adulterer, you shall lash each of them with one hundred lashes, and do not let any pity overtake you regarding the system of God if you believe in God and the Last Day. And let a group of the believers witness their punishment.
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

From these verses I do not see that it is necessarily the case that in the act, both should be considered as committing zina. In the case of Bob, you cannot punish an adultrer when there is not one to be found.

nimnimak_11

Salam nimnimak,
here you go..
http//tanzil.net/#search/root/%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%A1

peace

Peace Johan.

Thanks. I'l get back to you on this and on your other post when i take a look at them.

Peace

nimnimak_11

IMHO, rules and regulation only works if there's consensus among the many. since we have made a covenant with Allah SWT, then our assumption is that the consensus is held by many..
even if the majority doesn't, shouldn't we stead fast to the covenant?

Another point is that I actually have a problem with interpretation that MMA is loosely meant some ways of exchanging/relinquishing rights on partnership even for a short time as per this verse

But if you want to replace one wife with another and you have given one of them a great amount , do not take from it anything. Would you take it in injustice and manifest sin?

I don't think Quran allows prostitution at all let alone your wife being prostituted to others..

wallahua3lam

Salam Johan

The aim is to determine what is permitted and what is prohibited. What the majority or minority practice is not really relevant. I agree on this without doubt.

What is it in 420 that renders the notion of sex with the MMA as problematic? Here the case is that if someone is not happy with their wife and wants to remarry, then they should not take back anything that was given to their ex-wife which makes sense. It may be that if someone is not happy with their MMA, they could take back what they gave or that it may be better for them not to take back what they gave. What is clear from 420 is that in a marriage, taking back what was given is wrong. With this verse it might be argued that in the case of serious relationships which result in a break up, taking back what was given to the ex-MMA would be also wrong.

Whether the Quran allows prostitution depends on whether we can find any further restriction imposed on what is done with an MMA. Whether it allows a wife to enter prostitution, I'm pretty sure that that's a no.

By the way, I looked at the link you gave me, I'm still unclear what you mean by
for say al-3azeez and/or 3imraan
If you could further clarify for me, I'd appreciate it.

Peace

Sir_Comcision

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.

Yes, but this trend of picking out the root word of certain Arabic phrases of the Koran and using that as if it's somehow more authoritative than centuries and centuries of scholarship seems to be very tenuous to me. I may be a reactionary, but I simply do not get why everything in the Koran has to take on a new "modernized" spin. Either the Koran as it is is perfect and the West is just another (completely decadent) civilization composed of erring human beings, or this "sexually liberated" culture is simply wrong.

Bigmo

Yes, but this trend of picking out the root word of certain Arabic phrases of the Koran and using that as if it's somehow more authoritative than centuries and centuries of scholarship seems to be very tenuous to me. I may be a reactionary, but I simply do not get why everything in the Koran has to take on a new "modernized" spin. Either the Koran as it is is perfect and the West is just another (completely decadent) civilization composed of erring human beings, or this "sexually liberated" culture is simply wrong.

The problem here is that whenever we try to interpret the Koran by linguism only we run into lots of problems because the Koran uses the ame term variantly depending on context. We have to look at the context and other verses pertaining to a particular subject and reach deductions. We must also look at logic and reason. Verses that are implicit must not over ride the explicit verses.

What I noticed is that some people tend to have a liberal tilt and and others have a conservative til. This is mostly based on personality and experience. It does not have to be a case of being either Western influenced or islamic sectarian influence. Each accuses the other of being influenced when it may not be the case at all. Western soceities were not always liberal and Muslim societies may change. But it has more to do with the nature of the verse itself. It may be designed for both a liberal or a conservative interpretation as the Koran came to mankind and people have different philosophies. Not everyone can be liberal and not everyone can be conservative. But it should not be the case that one is following the Quran and the other is externally influenced.

Sir_Comcision

Eh I've always pretty much had the same view of the Koran even when I was a vegetarian center-leftist. For me it has more to do with not being influenced and not wanting to be "modern" than it has to do with political views. You might as well look at every single verse in the Koran and re-interpret them based on the root words. I prefer to take the mainstream translations of the Koran as pretty much fact unless there is clear proof that there needs to be a much deeper analysis (and I don't think that the Koran clashing with "modern" values is a sufficient reason for doing this). If the Koran can be interpreted to anyone's liking, there is no reason it should exist. You might as well write your own personal holy book.

Just my two cents.

johan

What is it in 420 that renders the notion of sex with the MMA as problematic? Here the case is that if someone is not happy with their wife and wants to remarry, then they should not take back anything that was given to their ex-wife which makes sense. It may be that if someone is not happy with their MMA, they could take back what they gave or that it may be better for them not to take back what they gave. What is clear from 420 is that in a marriage, taking back what was given is wrong. With this verse it might be argued that in the case of serious relationships which result in a break up, taking back what was given to the ex-MMA would be also wrong.

Whether the Quran allows prostitution depends on whether we can find any further restriction imposed on what is done with an MMA. Whether it allows a wife to enter prostitution, I'm pretty sure that that's a no.

By the way, I looked at the link you gave me, I'm still unclear what you mean by If you could further clarify for me, I'd appreciate it.

Peace

Salam nimnimak,
I don't think that's what 420 is referring, I think what the 420 is addressing is something against 2 husbands exchanging their wives with each other..

refers to the taking of the money from one husband to the other husband..
because I believe this is another form of legitimizing prostitution, i.e. the wife as the subject of prostitution..

as for the MMA, is a tough call..
not sure how to make of it..
haven't researched much about it..
but my understanding is that MMA is a one direction relationship, that is you are under control of your right hand and not the other way round where your right hand is controlling you..
so it's more of a master->slave or boss->employer rather than partner <-> partner

another restriction for prostitution is the verses with the term safa7a and muttakhidhati akhdaan
http//tanzil.net/#search/root/%D8%B3%D9%81%D8%AD
http//tanzil.net/#search/root/%D8%AE%D8%AF%D9%86

it doesn't make sense if safa7a has nothing to do with the notion of lust as blood being spilled wastefully
it doesn't make sense if akhdaan has nothing to do with the notion of wanting for some short term gains, i admit this one is harder to proove

I would look at how mary had a bad feelings against those who approached her thinking that they might take advantage of her..

Sahih International
She said, "Indeed, I seek refuge in the Most Merciful from you, , if you should be fearing of Allah."

wallahua3lam

nimnimak_11

The problem here is that whenever we try to interpret the Koran by linguism only we run into lots of problems because the Koran uses the ame term variantly depending on context. We have to look at the context and other verses pertaining to a particular subject and reach deductions. We must also look at logic and reason. Verses that are implicit must not over ride the explicit verses.

What I noticed is that some people tend to have a liberal tilt and and others have a conservative til. This is mostly based on personality and experience. It does not have to be a case of being either Western influenced or islamic sectarian influence. Each accuses the other of being influenced when it may not be the case at all. Western soceities were not always liberal and Muslim societies may change. But it has more to do with the nature of the verse itself. It may be designed for both a liberal or a conservative interpretation as the Koran came to mankind and people have different philosophies. Not everyone can be liberal and not everyone can be conservative. But it should not be the case that one is following the Quran and the other is externally influenced.

Great thoughts.

nimnimak_11

Eh I've always pretty much had the same view of the Koran even when I was a vegetarian center-leftist. For me it has more to do with not being influenced and not wanting to be "modern" than it has to do with political views. You might as well look at every single verse in the Koran and re-interpret them based on the root words. I prefer to take the mainstream translations of the Koran as pretty much fact unless there is clear proof that there needs to be a much deeper analysis (and I don't think that the Koran clashing with "modern" values is a sufficient reason for doing this). If the Koran can be interpreted to anyone's liking, there is no reason it should exist. You might as well write your own personal holy book.

Just my two cents.

What about rational values? In the case of 434 where mainstream translations conveyed that we should beat our wives went counter to reason.

We shouldn't limit or force interpretations out of the Quran to conform to our cultures or even reasoning. but we should try to understand the reasons behind controversial verses and restrain from carrying them out until they make sense. In the case of 434 we shouldn't beat women until some kind of credible study shows up suggesting it (beating) as highly beneficial to do so in those cases. But instead we found another translation where in which a cross-reference of the Quran itself suggested that beat was just a bad translation. This wasn't a forced interpretation. This was just the better interpretation in accordance with the Quran as far as i know.

In this case the core issue is not a matter of roots. Its more questions. How do we account for the unguarding of the private parts to MMA and how do we account for the necessity of the fatayat and the muhsinat women to be of MMA first before they are permissible for marriage.

nimnimak_11

Salam Johan

I don't think that's what 420 is referring, I think what the 420 is addressing is something against 2 husbands exchanging their wives with each other..

refers to the taking of the money from one husband to the other husband..
because I believe this is another form of legitimizing prostitution, i.e. the wife as the subject of prostitution..

This wouldn't work in marriage since 424 And the independent 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 Unless the exchange was for seeking to be Muhsin, then their exchange is not Quranic.

it doesn't make sense if safa7a has nothing to do with the notion of lust as blood being spilled wastefully.

I do believe it does but this verse is directed towards a nikah relation. I'm not sure if it would be applicable to an arrangement with an MMA. The implication of this would be that whilst outside of marriage it may be acceptable to have a relationship that is purely centred around lust, this is never acceptable in a marriage for that is not the purpose of marriage. In marriage perhaps love must always outweigh lust.

it doesn't make sense if akhdaan has nothing to do with the notion of wanting for some short term gains, i admit this one is harder to proove

In a marriage this is certainly unacceptable. But with an MMA it is (at least to me) not so clear since the arrangement might be that akhdan may be permissible. Depends on the nature of the arrangement with the MMA. I may be missing the point here as i might not be sufficiently grasping the arabic.

Peace

Sir_Comcision

What about rational values? In the case of 434 where mainstream translations conveyed that we should beat our wives went counter to reason.

It's not so much about "rational" values as it is about Western values, a few centuries ago the Koran prohibiting wife beating would probably be considered irrational.

We shouldn't limit or force interpretations out of the Quran to conform to our cultures or even reasoning. but we should try to understand the reasons behind controversial verses and restrain from carrying them out until they make sense. In the case of 434 we shouldn't beat women until some kind of credible study shows up suggesting it (beating) as highly beneficial to do so in those cases. But instead we found another translation where in which a cross-reference of the Quran itself suggested that beat was just a bad translation. This wasn't a forced interpretation. This was just the better interpretation in accordance with the Quran as far as i know.

But basically the only "proof" there is that it does not refer to wife beating is that there are other words that come from the same root, and the translations claiming that 434 does not refer to wife beating are on the fringe.

When it comes to "credible studies" and what is "beneficial", Allah's "opinion" (He doesn't have one, Allah's "opinion" is truth of course but for practical reasons I say "opinion&quot of what is beneficial overrides any other opinion.

In this case the core issue is not a matter of roots. Its more questions. How do we account for the unguarding of the private parts to MMA and how do we account for the necessity of the fatayat and the muhsinat women to be of MMA first before they are permissible for marriage.

What do you mean by "how do we account for"? Where is the difficulty?

johan

Salam Johan

This wouldn't work in marriage since 424 And the independent 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 Unless the exchange was for seeking to be Muhsin, then their exchange is not Quranic.

Salam Nimnimiak,
i don't understand what you're trying to say here..

I do believe it does but this verse is directed towards a nikah relation. I'm not sure if it would be applicable to an arrangement with an MMA. The implication of this would be that whilst outside of marriage it may be acceptable to have a relationship that is purely centred around lust, this is never acceptable in a marriage for that is not the purpose of marriage. In marriage perhaps love must always outweigh lust.

I think my stance in this subject has somehow shifted..

the reason why i concentrated on the wedlock was because i believed that the Quran was hinting us on
the essential assumption of how a relationship between man and women should be based on..
the essential assumption of how a stable family life is build on top of..

any other relationship that does not deals with wedlock is baghiyya..

Sahih International
She said, "How can I have a boy while no man has touched me and I have not been unchaste?"

in here baghiyya is translated as unchaste, but literally would mean rebellious. Rebellious to the laws of Allah SWT; but in what sense?

i believed that the only way a women could conceive a child is by sexual intercourse, but somehow the "miracles" of Maryam and 3eesa AS disproved this.. as if it was telling us that family does not mean father, mother and children..
as if Allah SWT was trying to make a point to Mary that your understanding of chastity is not right..
or your understanding of chastity is spot on, but the concept of chastity is wrong..

I have an itch that it's here where the understanding of MMA comes in..
but i'm still shady in the subject..

In a marriage this is certainly unacceptable. But with an MMA it is (at least to me) not so clear since the arrangement might be that akhdan may be permissible. Depends on the nature of the arrangement with the MMA. I may be missing the point here as i might not be sufficiently grasping the arabic.

Peace

Me too, I think we need to research more about what MMA exactly is..

wallahua3lam.

nimnimak_11

It's not so much about "rational" values as it is about Western values, a few centuries ago the Koran prohibiting wife beating would probably be considered irrational

Yes but back then in that kind of a society there wasn't much use of reason. They would perhaps deem it as non-sense but if they sat down and properly reasoned, they would most likely to realise that their actions were counter to compassion and irrational with regards to what they were trying to gain.

I think a look at the ancient Greeks and their philosophical and political theories shows the sort of unviersality and objectivity that reason has. Considering how far back they go and how influential and relevant their philosophical and political content are today, I think we can assume that reason when exercised effectively leads to something objective.

When it comes to "credible studies" and what is "beneficial", Allah's "opinion" (He doesn't have one, Allah's "opinion" is truth of course but for practical reasons I say "opinion&quot of what is beneficial overrides any other opinion.

Allah's "opinion" is law like. What we are trying to do is understand what is the correct way to bring about x and the tools we are given are reason, research and scripture. But given the odds of mistranslation and misinterpretation, we should not put scripture ahead of reason since between the tools we are given, it is less likely that we would go wrong with our reason (in my opinion) and that to defend my point of view via the Quran, I would say that we are responsible for our intellect/brain/aql. If we forgo our aql for interpretation i think it harder to justify to the God. There's got to be some proportion where the credibility of interpretation vs. the objection of reason vs. the consequences are taken into account. For example i don't see it rational that pork should be prohibited but I still keep off it because a) the interpretation is fairly clear b) i harm no one other than me and c) the harm to me is little. But in the case of say lashing, I would never carry it out and i would put effort into stopping it being carried out since it strongly goes against reason even though the interpretation is fairly clear there still is a chance that we are missing something important from the interpretation.

What research does is give us sufficient evidence to think that for exmaple lashing is actually the right thing to do in that context. If some research suggested that via lashing effect x happens, then I would advocate lashing rather than oppose it. Of course the research could be mistaken but i think I can justify myself to the God as being sufficiently cautious.

What do you mean by "how do we account for"? Where is the difficulty?

What I meant was given those verses, I cannot see how we can say sex is exclusive to marriage. That is how else can we account for these verses and what they are conveying.

nimnimak_11

Salam Johan

i don't understand what you're trying to say here.

I meant that the verse (424) makes it clear that marriage is for the sake of independence and not sex. Thus the idea of wife prostitution would not hold. Even if the procedure of nikah is carried out, it is not carried out Quranically since the intention of wife-swap here is sex and not to be become muhsin. For that reason, wife-prostitution becomes impossible if we are to go by the Quran. I think this makes sense considering the goals and purposes of marriage. Something like wife-prostitution would make a mockery of marriage.

the essential assumption of how a relationship between man and women should be based on..
the essential assumption of how a stable family life is build on top of.

I agree. In my opnion that is why there is a marriage contract. The marriage contract IMO is not for unlocking sex. Unless it can be argued that marriage is for family which is for kids which means sex (that leads to kids) should be exclusive to marriage. Which in turn would place a limitation on how one would unguard their private parts to their MMA. But then how do we account for Mary and Jesus?

in here baghiyya is translated as unchaste, but literally would mean rebellious. Rebellious to the laws of Allah SWT; but in what sense?

I'm looking at this now. I'l hopefully post what I find out later on in the day (if i get sufficient info).

Peace

nimnimak_11

Peace Johan

Sahih International
She said, "How can I have a boy while no man has touched me and I have not been unchaste?"

Mary points out that a) no man has yamasani (touched) her and that she has not been baghiyyan.

I think the relevant meaning of the use of baghiyyan by Mary in 1920 is

She committed fornication, or adultery; she prostituted herself; (JK, 8, Mglh, M.b, 1 because
she who does so transgresses her proper bounds;

I think this because In 2433 i cannot see the use of bigha as relating to grudge or rebelliousness in any way.

2433 And do not force your fatayat women to bigha 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.

I don't understand why 2433 only refers to the fatayat and not to the muhsinat but here bigha seems to refer to sex that is not wanted by the fatayat (since they are being forced) which I think would be one instance of transgressing the woman's proper bounds with regards to sex. So perhaps prostitution is ruled out because the sex is unwanted and any instance of unwanted sex is an example of transgressing the appropriate bounds with regards to sex.

In 1920 perhaps Mary is saying that she has neither had permissible nor impermissible sex thus a child is impossible in her case.

In another verse however she never expresses bigha 347 Sahih International She said, "My Lord, how will I have a child when no man has touched me?" said, "Such is Allah ; He creates what He wills. When He decrees a matter, He only says to it, 'Be,' and it is.

Peace

Sir_Comcision

Yes but back then in that kind of a society there wasn't much use of reason. They would perhaps deem it as non-sense but if they sat down and properly reasoned, they would most likely to realise that their actions were counter to compassion and irrational with regards to what they were trying to gain.

Since when did "compassion" have anything to do with reason? I'm just sayin', for Muslims it's irrational to assume that just because there is something in the Koran that appears "outdated" it is invalid. It's a matter of being logically consistent.

Allah's "opinion" is law like. What we are trying to do is understand what is the correct way to bring about x and the tools we are given are reason, research and scripture. But given the odds of mistranslation and misinterpretation, we should not put scripture ahead of reason since between the tools we are given, it is less likely that we would go wrong with our reason (in my opinion) and that to defend my point of view via the Quran, I would say that we are responsible for our intellect/brain/aql. If we forgo our aql for interpretation i think it harder to justify to the God. There's got to be some proportion where the credibility of interpretation vs. the objection of reason vs. the consequences are taken into account. For example i don't see it rational that pork should be prohibited but I still keep off it because a) the interpretation is fairly clear b) i harm no one other than me and c) the harm to me is little. But in the case of say lashing, I would never carry it out and i would put effort into stopping it being carried out since it strongly goes against reason even though the interpretation is fairly clear there still is a chance that we are missing something important from the interpretation.

My point is that it's not rational to say that the Koran is the absolute word of God and then pick and choose from what you want to follow of it.

What research does is give us sufficient evidence to think that for exmaple lashing is actually the right thing to do in that context. If some research suggested that via lashing effect x happens, then I would advocate lashing rather than oppose it. Of course the research could be mistaken but i think I can justify myself to the God as being sufficiently cautious.

Why do you need "research" when God himself confirms that lashing is just?

nimnimak_11

I'm just sayin', for Muslims it's irrational to assume that just because there is something in the Koran that appears "outdated" it is invalid. It's a matter of being logically consistent.

And I agree.

My point is that it's not rational to say that the Koran is the absolute word of God and then pick and choose from what you want to follow of it.

Again I agree. But I it's rational to be cautious over interpretation given the possibility of inaccuracies before carrying out what certain interpretations convey. It's more a case of understanding and acknowledging before practicing rather than picking and choosing what to practice.

Why do you need "research" when God himself confirms that lashing is just?

Because a verse may make no sense and this may be down a mistaken interpretation. This is not the same as rejecting what the God confirms. Lashing may be a misinterpretation or just something that makes no sense to someone who does not have the relevant knowledge.

Given the seriousness of the act, in my opnion we should not carry out the act until we come to be in possession of some relevant information that then renders lashing as the sensible thing to do. Because if we don't, in my opinion we have not used our aql sufficiently and we can thus be held accountable for the lashing we afflicted on the adultrer.

johan

Peace nimnimak,
I think wer're on the same side now bro on this subject..
kind of weired to say it but i'm shifting sides, or should i say swinging it..

watch this

For those who swear not to have sexual relations with their wives is a waiting time of four months, but if the period passes - then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

now why oh why does the husband need to wait till the nth period if he was the husband since the beginning of time?
if it's not because somebody else might be legitimately moving in on the wife even though the wife is married to him..?

so i guess the purpose of the marriage institution is to guarantee nomatter who is the progenitor of the child in the womb of the wife the husband will always be the father and the child will always be the legitimate benefactor of his inheritance..

iam eager to hear opinions..

let me just add the reason why Yousouf AS did not make a move on his Fathers wife..you guessed it..
it's because it's his father's wife..

Sahih International
And the one from Egypt who bought him said to his wife, "Make his residence comfortable. Perhaps he will benefit us, or we will adopt him as a son." And thus, We established Joseph in the land that We might teach him the interpretation of events. And Allah is predominant over His affair, but most of the people do not know.

Sahih International
And do not marry those whom your fathers married, except what has already occurred. Indeed, it was an immorality and hateful and was evil as a way.

so could it be safe to say that i guess at the end of the day..to us human we don't really have to know much about the bloodlines..
because at the end of the day we came from the same father and mother..Adam AS and his wife..

but what we need to care is who will rightfully inherit us..?
and who will need to take care of us when we are children..?

Mothers may breastfeed their children two complete years for whoever wishes to complete the nursing . Upon the progenitor is the mothers' provision and their clothing according to what is acceptable. No person is charged with more than his capacity. No mother should be harmed through her child, and no progenitor through his child. And upon the heir is like that . And if they both desire weaning through mutual consent from both of them and consultation, there is no blame upon either of them. And if you wish to have your children nursed by a substitute, there is no blame upon you as long as you give payment according to what is acceptable. And fear Allah and know that Allah is Seeing of what you do.

I would assume that if the women is not married then the progenitor has the obligation to feed the child and the child has the right of being the benefactor of the inheritance..?
it's just kind of hard to determine who's who without a propper wedlock..hmm..
i guess the father is not responsible for the upkeep of the child but the progenitor is..

i'm actually not sure about the inheritance..maybe someone would shed light.. i currently don't have time to search on it..

so the terms wife and husband has to do a lot with inheritance..
while the term progenitors has to do a lot with the upkeeping..

wallahua3lam..

mmkhan

For those who swear not to have sexual relations with their wives is a waiting time of four months, but if the period passes - then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

Salaam,

I have problem with the translation above . Arabic word used in this aayat is "faaa-oou" which does not mean "if the period passes".

Please check 499 for two other derivatives of the same word as "tafiyy-a" and "faaa-at". There are more derivatives of this word is available in AlQuraan.

2226 "....if they return/get back...." should be the correct translation inshaAllah.

Sorry for my interference in your discussion brothers, I thought it is necessary so I joined in.

May Allah increase us in knowledge and guide us to His true path pr
mmKhan