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

johan

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

Salam mmKhan,

you're quite right bro.. glad you corrected me..

i got confused with this word as in

in the sense of the month being lost/passed by..

so let me get this straight..
the reason for the waiting is so that she gets some sort of certainty in her basic needs..and thus the months rather than periods as per the following next verses..
after which a divorce and only after that does the periods come in..she will need another 3 periods before she can marry again..

that's really tough..
...
peace

mmkhan

Salam mmKhan,

you're quite right bro.. glad you corrected me..

i got confused with this word as in

in the sense of the month being lost/passed by..

so let me get this straight..
the reason for the waiting is so that she gets some sort of certainty in her basic needs..and thus the months rather than periods as per the following next verses..
after which a divorce and only after that does the periods come in..she will need another 3 periods before she can marry again..

that's really tough..
...
peace

Salaam bro,

But that four months waiting period is for men who swear with their wives. After that if they don't return that is considered as talaaq and then divorced women has to wait for three months before she gets marry.

First "Iddat" of four months is for men.

Yes it is really tough, if you compare with other aayaats Allah always try to keep them in marriage, Allah never prefers divorce also people should not play with divorce so the first waiting period is for men.

This is how I understand.

Now new talaaq is so easy that recently we have new fatwas in news paper about divorce in different conditions.

1- While chatting if husband used the word talaaq three times, their marriage is void.
2- On phone if husband used the word talaaq three times, their marriage is void.
3- Even if husband used the word talaaq three times in joke, their marriage is void.
4- If husband repeat the word talaaq three times even if there is no witness or in absence of his wife, their marriage is void.

I am thinking these people don't read the word talaaq in AlQuraan also? hmm

They made it so simple to talaaq that they enjoy halaala there are some blind people whom this divorced women get married for one night, after that they will pay some amount to that blind and he gives talaaq next day and then she can marry to her old / previous husband.

How sad and how sick. May Allah protect us. See how powerful Allah's rules are compare to their. BTW, I should add that talaaq is only twice in a life time.

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

johan

Salaam bro,

But that four months waiting period is for men who swear with their wives. After that if they don't return that is considered as talaaq and then divorced women has to wait for three months before she gets marry.

First "Iddat" of four months is for men.

Yes it is really tough, if you compare with other aayaats Allah always try to keep them in marriage, Allah never prefers divorce also people should not play with divorce so the first waiting period is for men.

This is how I understand.

Now new talaaq is so easy that recently we have new fatwas in news paper about divorce in different conditions.

1- While chatting if husband used the word talaaq three times, their marriage is void.
2- On phone if husband used the word talaaq three times, their marriage is void.
3- Even if husband used the word talaaq three times in joke, their marriage is void.
4- If husband repeat the word talaaq three times even if there is no witness or in absence of his wife, their marriage is void.

I am thinking these people don't read the word talaaq in AlQuraan also? hmm

They made it so simple to talaaq that they enjoy halaala there are some blind people whom this divorced women get married for one night, after that they will pay some amount to that blind and he gives talaaq next day and then she can marry to her old / previous husband.

How sad and how sick. May Allah protect us. See how powerful Allah's rules are compare to their. BTW, I should add that talaaq is only twice in a life time.

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

Salam mmKhan,

you do realize that men can marry more than one..
so it won't effect the men if the motives were the basic needs..but it would effect the women..
that would destabilize her, but i am just a human i don't know for sure..

it doesn't make sense if bloodlines is so important to track..
the only one who is able to track is Allah SWT, so we can only put trust on Allah SWT to track..

Sahih International
He said, "O Noah, indeed he is not of your family; indeed, he is work was other than righteous, so ask Me not for that about which you have no knowledge. Indeed, I advise you, lest you be among the ignorant."

i feel that what we need to do is to care for those children whether it's our bloodline or not..
and that there is a way to institutionalize it through inheritance of some sort and MMA and what not..

so couldn't there be possibilities of miss transcribing the codec?
from faatoo to faa'oo..
it's only difference is a hamza instead of ta dots???i don't know if there were dots in the old inscriptions..

wallahua3lam

mmkhan

Salaam brother,

As per my current understanding, men can marry only one women at a time. Secondly, again translation of 1146 is wrong. That was not Nooh's own son.

I am not writing in detail cause to avoid off-topic.

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

johan

Salaam brother,

As per my current understanding, men can marry only one women at a time. Secondly, again translation of 1146 is wrong. That was not Nooh's own son.

I am not writing in detail cause to avoid off-topic.

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

Salam brother,

we are in disagreement with 1st point.
for the second point, the translation never mentioned son but family..
i feel that the concept of ahl(family) has a lot to do with inheritance..

Sahih International
And never is it for a believer to kill a believer except by mistake. And whoever kills a believer by mistake - then the freeing of a believing slave and a compensation payment presented to the deceased's family unless they give charity. But if the deceased was from a people at war with you and he was a believer - then the freeing of a believing slave; and if he was from a people with whom you have a treaty - then a compensation payment presented to his family and the freeing of a believing slave. And whoever does not find - then , a fast for two months consecutively, acceptance of repentance from Allah. And Allah is ever Knowing and Wise.

but if you wish not to discuss further then i will not ..

wallahua3lam,

mmkhan

Salam brother,

we are in disagreement with 1st point.
for the second point, the translation never mentioned son but family..
i feel that the concept of ahl(family) has a lot to do with inheritance..
but if you wish not to discuss further then i will not ..

wallahua3lam,

Salaam brother,

I respect your decision on disagreement.

Second one, yes but it is about the son, if you read carefully it is about the son not about other family members of Nooh.

If you want to discuss further please open another thread brother for this discussion.

Thanks,
mmKhan

nimnimak_11

Peace Johan and Mmkhan

Something I've been struggling with is trying to determine which verses apply to husband and wife, and which verses apply to individual and MMA.

For example
2222 And they ask you about the menstruations? Say "It is harmful, so keep away 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.

Is this verse exclusive to marriage or does the usage of the term women instead of zawj or some other like term mean that it also applies to MMAs? I can't see how this would not also apply to MMAs. It would be absurd to say that we can approach our MMAs but then once they become our wives we cannot approach them.

then later on you have

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

Here instead of zawj or some other like term that establishes the exclusivity of this verse for married relations only, the term nisa is used again which. Does that mean that those who are in an unmarried relationship should also wait for four months before separating?

I think based on earlier discussions, marriage is not something that is done overnight. By the time one finds the right person and verifies that they fit the purposes for marriage in relation to themselves, it is something that takes a while and there is an implication that that relationship wherein which the individual is ready to prepare for nikah is one where the bond is close. Thus it would make sense here to have a four month waiting period to make sure that the decision being made is the right one and not one out of haste. I don't think this can be applied to say a short relationship with an MMA. Now whether there was any sex during that short time or not, may change things. Perhaps the term yu'lna (swear (off)) can better clarify in what context, based on what action, and what conditions and relationship status between the man and woman, is the man supposed to have a waiting period of 4 months before seperating?

then later on

2230 So if he divorces her again, then she will not be lawful for him until after she has married a different husband; 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.

Here the word talaq and zawj is used as well as nikah. I'm not sure why zawj is used here since they don't qualify for the status of zawj until after the marriage has taken place and not before.

Either way 2230 seems to establish that it is with regards to zawj and marriage. The question is which of the verses that lead up to this were also referring to a married relationship. I think that 2226 is with regards to marriage but 2222 i don't think so mainly because it would be absurd unless we assume that that kind of approach which is prohibited during the mensturations is exclusive to marriage. If so then we need to like outline what exactly constitutes that kind of approach towards the women.

nimnimak_11

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

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..

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..?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..

Peace Johan

I'm really unsure about 2226 as to whether it applies to just husband and wife or also MMA.

it's just kind of hard to determine who's who without a propper wedlock..hmm.

I agree. Which is why I'm thinking of two possibilities. Either the verses with regards to menstruation and separation and waiting periods also apply to MMAs, or sex is not considered as permissible with MMAs. But given 235-6, 423-25 and Mary's usage of the word touch, I think it can be concluded that sexual acts are permitted with MMAs so long as the acts involved make the probability of pregnancy 0% This would solve the issue of waiting periods (i think) but it might no be so clear on 2222. But I think that is fairly self-evident that 2222 is referring to MMAs as well zawj. I can't say the same for the other verses with regards to divorce and waiting periods.

At the moment I think that sexual acts with MMA, provided that children are impossible is permissible. In the case of where someone can't have kids, then I think unprotected sex is acceptable. I think the important thing here is whether there will be a pregnancy (which is impossible outside of marriage) or whether a potentially good marriage will be ruined out of haste (which the four month period helps prevent)

Thats my current position Brother. It makes sense to me and I think it makes sense in the context of the Quran.

With regards to Prophet Yousuf. I think the fact that the wife had a husband was enough to render Yousuf's action (if he were to yield to desire that is) very wrong. If the man was his father then it's even more wrong o

Peace

johan

Peace Johan and Mmkhan

Something I've been struggling with is trying to determine which verses apply to husband and wife, and which verses apply to individual and MMA.

For example
2222 And they ask you about the menstruations? Say "It is harmful, so keep away 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.

Is this verse exclusive to marriage or does the usage of the term women instead of zawj or some other like term mean that it also applies to MMAs? I can't see how this would not also apply to MMAs. It would be absurd to say that we can approach our MMAs but then once they become our wives we cannot approach them.

Salam nimnimak,
I think I have 2 points to make on this one

nissa'(women/female?) is more likely to be the generalised term while the fatayat, ummahat, imra'ah are it's specialised terms..(need proof)
zawj is sex independant; can be male/female (need proof)

then later on you have

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

Here instead of zawj or some other like term that establishes the exclusivity of this verse for married relations only, the term nisa is used again which. Does that mean that those who are in an unmarried relationship should also wait for four months before separating?

I also think this points to MMA's and Zawj, which seems to fortify the concept of outside wedlock (zawj).

I think based on earlier discussions, marriage is not something that is done overnight. By the time one finds the right person and verifies that they fit the purposes for marriage in relation to themselves, it is something that takes a while and there is an implication that that relationship wherein which the individual is ready to prepare for nikah is one where the bond is close. Thus it would make sense here to have a four month waiting period to make sure that the decision being made is the right one and not one out of haste. I don't think this can be applied to say a short relationship with an MMA. Now whether there was any sex during that short time or not, may change things. Perhaps the term yu'lna (swear (off)) can better clarify in what context, based on what action, and what conditions and relationship status between the man and woman, is the man supposed to have a waiting period of 4 months before seperating?

I think based on 412 inheritance is the motif for marriage.
The term walad (the begoten) is the rightful inheritor to their genealogical parents (walidah n mawlood mentioned in 2233).
The term waarith(the inheritor) in 2233 is the inheritor of the responsibilities of the walidah n mawlood?

Sahih International
Mothers may breastfeed their children two complete years for whoever wishes to complete the nursing . Upon the father 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 father 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.

Sahih International
And for you is half of what your wives/husbands? leave if they have no child. But if they have a child, for you is one fourth of what they leave, after any bequest they made or debt. And for the wives is one fourth if you leave no child. But if you leave a child, then for them is an eighth of what you leave, after any bequest you made or debt. And if a man or woman leaves neither ascendants nor descendants but has a brother or a sister, then for each one of them is a sixth. But if they are more than two, they share a third, after any bequest which was made or debt, as long as there is no detriment . an ordinance from Allah, and Allah is Knowing and Forbearing.

but all in all, i think the moral of the story is that marriage means the inheriting of the spouse's assets n liabilities in case one of them pass away, this is the big commitment.
i would guess that it would complicate the calculation if the son marries the wife of the father, thus the forbidding of it.(need proof)
are the children part of the assets/liabilities? i would guess yes until they reach a certain maturity level where they can be independant..(need proof)

then later on

2230 So if he divorces her again, then she will not be lawful for him until after she has married a different husband; 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.

Here the word talaq and zawj is used as well as nikah. I'm not sure why zawj is used here since they don't qualify for the status of zawj until after the marriage has taken place and not before.

Either way 2230 seems to establish that it is with regards to zawj and marriage. The question is which of the verses that lead up to this were also referring to a married relationship. I think that 2226 is with regards to marriage but 2222 i don't think so mainly because it would be absurd unless we assume that that kind of approach which is prohibited during the mensturations is exclusive to marriage. If so then we need to like outline what exactly constitutes that kind of approach towards the women.

i think 2230 can be used to establish the definition of zawj in relationship to marriage. the phrase would refer to the next commitment of husband/wife that is apart from the ex/previous-husband/wife.
i also think that is why marriage has nothing to do with locking with who you can have sexual intercourse with, but rather to who your next born child will be burdened/prized(depending on pov) to in terms of the upkeep and in terms of the inheritance status..
and this is probably why you don't just exchange between two husbands and two wives as in 420, but you need to undergo a divorce ceremony first to honor the commitments of the womb, and hence the 3 periods..otherwise the commitment to share the burden is of no use ever since the marriage was commenced between the two..

opinions please

wallahua3lam

nimnimak_11

Salam Johan

nissa'(women/female?) is more likely to be the generalised term while the fatayat, ummahat, imra'ah are it's specialised terms..(need proof)
zawj is sex independant; can be male/female (need proof)

I agree with both points

I also think this points to MMA's and Zawj, which seems to fortify the concept of outside wedlock (zawj)

I'm sort of uncertain with this. The verses that follow which mention talagh (divorce) all appear to be in the context of a zawj and nikah bond. In particular 2230 I think is a good implication that the word talagh only with regards to marriages. But then again at the same time i'm thinking what happens when someone seperates from their MMA. That's also talagh right? So it could be argued that 2226's use of talagh is not exclusive to only those who are married. It also applies to other relationships. But at the same time other relationships would have to be a sexual relationship or something intense because it can't be the case that 4 months waiting period is practised for a relationship that lasted 3 days.
The question is what exactly does the term yu'lna entail.

I think based on 412 inheritance is the motif for marriage.

Interesting. I think that would be one of the key reasons maybe even the main reason.

The term walad (the begoten) is the rightful inheritor to their genealogical parents (walidah n mawlood mentioned in 2233).
The term waarith(the inheritor) in 2233 is the inheritor of the responsibilities of the walidah n mawlood?

I agree with both and no other alternative would make sense in the case of what waarith means in my opinion.

i would guess that it would complicate the calculation if the son marries the wife of the father, thus the forbidding of it.(need proof)

Not sure on this. I think the mean reason for the forbidding of that is that it is intrinsically lewd. The verse says that it is for this reason. If it was down to complicating things with regards to inheritance, then it would be prohibited on other grounds than lewdness.

422 And do not marry who your fathers had married from the women, except what has already been done. It is a lewdness, and an abhorrence, and an evil path.

i also think that is why marriage has nothing to do with locking with who you can have sexual intercourse with, but rather to who your next born child will be burdened/prized(depending on pov) to in terms of the upkeep and in terms of the inheritance status..
and this is probably why you don't just exchange between two husbands and two wives as in 420, but you need to undergo a divorce ceremony first to honor the commitments of the womb, and hence the 3 periods..otherwise the commitment to share the burden is of no use ever since the marriage was commenced between the two..

I agree. This implies that having children with other men to whom one is not married to is impermissible. What then happens in the case of when a couple want a child but the man can't have kids so they find a sperm donor? What does that do to our discussion of to whom kids should be born and by who's sperm and egg they should be born?

Peace

johan

Salam nimnimak,

in general i got this notion of needing to reevaluate all the definition of the terms that are involved with family, relationship, inheritance, sexual intercourse, morality(lewdness/fa7sha, bagiyya, stealing) etc into one integrated theme..
i have this feeling that it tends towards creating a heaven on earth.. )

the idea is like at first people will be reluctant to embrace this heaven on earth idea the way they didn't comprehend the earth not being flat in those days..
Allah SWT played with conventional words like madadnaha(spread/stretch) to give the notion of it's flatness common in that time,
but He also played word riddles like da77aha(ostrich egg) to give a possibility of a different interpretation..

that interpretation only now we understood for certainty after taking a snapshot from out of space..

what i'm getting at is this
why the complication of different words to mean the same thing, unless it wasn't intended to mean the same thing in the first place, such as
mawlood, zawj, ba3l to point to the notion of husband?? or maybe they are specific terms for specific purposes with specific paradigms..
etc.etc.etc.

i hope i got my point across..
i think we're into something, right?

wallahua3lam
peace

SarahY

I think part of people's understandings of the various words have contributed to the varying interpretations

So if any of you could summarise what you have come up with /concluded/unresolved, that would be nice

nimnimak_11

Salam nimnimak,

in general i got this notion of needing to reevaluate all the definition of the terms that are involved with family, relationship, inheritance, sexual intercourse, morality(lewdness/fa7sha, bagiyya, stealing) etc into one integrated theme..
i have this feeling that it tends towards creating a heaven on earth..

the idea is like at first people will be reluctant to embrace this heaven on earth idea the way they didn't comprehend the earth not being flat in those days..
Allah SWT played with conventional words like madadnaha(spread/stretch) to give the notion of it's flatness common in that time,
but He also played word riddles like da77aha(ostrich egg) to give a possibility of a different interpretation..

that interpretation only now we understood for certainty after taking a snapshot from out of space..

what i'm getting at is this
why the complication of different words to mean the same thing, unless it wasn't intended to mean the same thing in the first place, such as
mawlood, zawj, ba3l to point to the notion of husband?? or maybe they are specific terms for specific purposes with specific paradigms..
etc.etc.etc.

i hope i got my point across..
i think we're into something, right?

wallahua3lam
peace

I hope that which we're onto will either be the truth or lead to it

I think part of people's understandings of the various words have contributed to the varying interpretations

So if any of you could summarise what you have come up with /concluded/unresolved, that would be nice

Salam Sarah

I did do this a few pages back but some stuff has been added so I'l do another one but i'l start a thread and put a link to redirect to this thread if it's going to be discussed. That way the summary will always be without it being lost in many pages of discussion and it can be discussed on this thread.

johan

We all have blind spots.
Follow your heart but take your brain with you.
ambiguity is there for a reason, why do you think?
We're all different, so how can we all be equal?

Salam Sarah ,
I love your quotes..where did you get them from..
they so describe this thread's status..

Salam nimnimak,
great job with the summary..hope to work on it in these two weeks..i'm going to be thorough..
inshaallah..

peace all

nimnimak_11

Salam Sarah ,
I love your quotes..where did you get them from..
they so describe this thread's status..

Salam nimnimak,
great job with the summary..hope to work on it in these two weeks..i'm going to be thorough..
inshaallah..

peace all

Thanks Johan,
Good luck bro

Peace

SarahY

Salam Sarah ,
I love your quotes..where did you get them from..
they so describe this thread's status..

I found "Follow your heart but take your brain with you" a long time ago on the internet. everything else i made up.

i think 2230 can be used to establish the definition of zawj in relationship to marriage. the phrase would refer to the next commitment of husband/wife that is apart from the ex/previous-husband/wife.
i also think that is why marriage has nothing to do with locking with who you can have sexual intercourse with, but rather to who your next born child will be burdened/prized(depending on pov) to in terms of the upkeep and in terms of the inheritance status..
and this is probably why you don't just exchange between two husbands and two wives as in 420, but you need to undergo a divorce ceremony first to honor the commitments of the womb, and hence the 3 periods..otherwise the commitment to share the burden is of no use ever since the marriage was commenced between the two..

this didn't make much sense to me. excluding next born child, that statement about marriage seems to indicate that even if you are married you are free to have sexual intercourse with others.... also it seems to indicate that marriage is purely for childbearing, which i don't agree with. however i may have misunderstood you

Nima

I hope that which we're onto will either be the truth or lead to it

Salam Sarah

I did do this a few pages back but some stuff has been added so I'l do another one but i'l start a thread and put a link to redirect to this thread if it's going to be discussed. That way the summary will always be without it being lost in many pages of discussion and it can be discussed on this thread.

you could link the page without starting a new thread

I agree. This implies that having children with other men to whom one is not married to is impermissible. What then happens in the case of when a couple want a child but the man can't have kids so they find a sperm donor? What does that do to our discussion of to whom kids should be born and by who's sperm and egg they should be born?

So many what-if's right? you like to complicate things. If it's agreed that you can't have kids from outside the wedlock/husband how would it be ok to take sperm from someone else? There's always adoptions.

At the moment I think that sexual acts with MMA, provided that children are impossible is permissible
Children aren't "impossible" even with protection. they're not totally child free proof.

nimnimak_11

Salam Sarah

you could link the page without starting a new thread

I thought a thread might be a better option. It can be updated there and then as one continuous thread page of summary. If i'd posted a link on the first page of this thread to a summary on say page 51, and then more discussion happens and the summary gets an update on page 60, this would be more complicated then just adding the findings between pages 51-60 to the summary thread instead of summarising 51-60 on page 61 and then posting another link of summary on page 1 of the thread.

So many what-if's right? you like to complicate things. If it's agreed that you can't have kids from outside the wedlock/husband how would it be ok to take sperm from someone else? There's always adoptions.

It's a complicated subject. I want to consider all that I can. What if's help rule out or strengthen certain things.
For example is the Quran's emphasis on the exclusivity of sexual activity in marriage, or the exclusivity of pregnancy in marriage or both. If we take it on the idea of sexual acitivity alone, then we could say that it is possible that the sperm of another man can penetrate a woman without any sexual activity. Does this face difficulties? yes IMO

I think that we can rule out the idea that Quran's emphasis is only on sexual acitivity because it seems that 2228-233 is implying that pregnancy should primarily or only occur in marriages.

If we take the idea of pregnancy alone and not sexual activity; does this face problems? no IMO
There is nothing to imply otherwise as far as i am aware. The implication of this is that sexual activity can take place outside of marriage. But there are two limits on this as outlined by the Quran. One is that the individual has to be MMA, the other is that (this is a bit more controversial) that whatever sexual activity is involved, it must guarantee that there will be no pregnancy.

Children aren't "impossible" even with protection. they're not totally child free proof.

Agreed. Which is why the sexual activity should of the nature that does not involve positions or actions that make a child possible.

For example, there could be sexual activity without actual penetration thus 0% of pregnancy but sexual activity present. Or penetration could happen but then the man can pull out before releasing although this is more controversial as it can be argued that this involves risk even if it is very minimal (the guy could get carried away for example)

If we take the idea that no sexual activity or pregnancy is permissible outside marriage, would that hold? no imo

How then do we account for MMAs in 235-6 and 423-25? why would we place a further restriction when there is none to be implied elsewhere in the scripture? How do we also account for making the fatayat and the muhsinat an MMA before they are permissible for marriage?

For these reasons I currently think that sex is permissible outside of marriage and that in the case of pregnancy it is either obligatory or just better to occur in marriages. If pregnancy or the sort of act that can lead to pregnancy occurs outside of marriage, then the waiting period must logically apply.

SarahY

OK and how do you define an MMA? what makes someone an MMA???

please read Asad's notes on MMA in regards to 236

Lit., "or those whom their right hands possess" (aw ma malakat aymanuhum). Many of the commentators assume unquestioningly that this relates to female slaves, and that the particle aw ("or&quot denotes a permissible alternative. This interpretation is, in my opinion, inadmissible inasmuch as it is based on the assumption that sexual intercourse with ones female slave is permitted without marriage an assumption, which is contradicted by the Qur?an itself (see 43, 24, 25 and 2432, with the corresponding notes). Nor is this the only objection to the above-mentioned interpretation. Since the Qur?an applies the term ??believers" to men and women alike, and since the term azwaj ("spouses&quot, too, denotes both the male and the female partners in marriage, there is no reason for attributing to the phrase ma malakat aymanuhum the meaning of "their female slaves??; and since, on the other hand, it is out of the question that female and male slaves could have been referred to here it is obvious that this phrase does not relate to slaves at all, but has the same meaning as in 424 - namely, "those whom they rightfully possess through wedlock (see note 26 on 424) - with the significant difference that in the present context this expression relates to both husbands and wives, who "rightfully possess" one another by virtue of marriage. On the basis of this interpretation, the particle aw which precedes this clause does not denote an alternative ("or&quot but is, rather, in the nature of an explanatory amplification, more or less analogous to the phrase "in other words" or "that is", thus giving to the whole sentence the meaning, "save with their spouses - that is, those whom they rightfully possess ", etc. (Cf. a similar construction 2562 - ??for him who has the will to take thought -that is , has the will to be grateful".)(Quran Ref 236 )

if you think it doesn't make sense, try re-reading it. let me know what you think

salam

nimnimak_11

Salam Sarah

Going through 423-25, it's somewhat clear IMO that MMA is a status that applies pre-marriage.

424 And the independent (muhsinat) from the women, except those maintained by your oaths (MMA)

What would you take this as? In this passage it appears to me that an MMA is someone you marry not someone who you are already married to or have been married to previously. MMA with marriage then turns into a zawj. But in response to this you could say that a similar thing has been done with the term zawj at 2232

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 (zawj)

In this case though I think that these were once husbands (a marriage occurred for these to take the status of zawj) They may have officially lost the status after divorce but the phrase remarry their husbands seems to indicate that zawj is still in reference to post-marriage not pre-marriage given that in the past they married then turned to zawj.

the following verses are perhaps the strongest proofs

2431 and 2433

2431 And tell the believing females to lower their gaze and keep covered their private parts, and that they should not reveal their beauty except what is apparent, and let them put forth their shawls over their cleavage. And let them not reveal their beauty except to their husbands, or their fathers, or fathers of their husbands, or their sons, or the sons of their husbands, or their brothers, or the sons of their brothers, or the sons of their sisters, or their women, or those maintained by their oaths

Corpus.quran.com is down so i can't check what term is used in place of husband here but having a rough look at the arabic i think that it is baal. I could be wrong though. But here there is a distinction between husband and MMA. Unless you think that there is a distinction between zawj and husband, then 2431 is IMO pretty strong proof

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.

This I think is the clearest indication that MMA is pre-marriage. That which is in italics I have to double check with corpus but i think it's pretty clear. Also the last sentence is pretty strong in indicating that this is a relationship that is moving towards a marriage rather than a marriage that is moving forwards.

OK and how do you define an MMA? what makes someone an MMA???

I'd say someone who you just have an oath with. This could be just a mutual verbal agreement or even an implicit agreement (like you go in a restaurant and it is implicitly agreed without one directly saying that i will pay for the food i eat here)

What do you think?

SarahY

I will say i do not believe you can have sex or sexual intercourse freely so long as the person has 0% pregnancy. Because to me that just sounds like allowing prostitution and to me that is a lewd act.

What constitutes an MMA for sex/sexual conduct? There is no proof currently just assumptions. Remember verses need to be read in context and not taken in one instance and applied wholly on others.

I showed you a passage of 424 in which i believe MMA refers to marriage partner. Because sex with slaves or other than marriage is contradictory. For example

43 uses to term MMA if you read the whole verse the nouns that are used are governed by the imperative verb ?marry? ?fainkihoo. I don?t think that?s a coincidence. Why should you marry them? A free women? or a slave? If you can have sexual counters with them why do nikkah?

Next back to 424 forbidden to you are all married women except whom you MMA. In other words except the married woman you are married to, otherwise all married women are forbidden so then that would mean your own wife would be forbidden to you! Then it goes on about who is lawful to you. Then it talks about being chaste not unchaste. And the word used is ghayr masafaheen. Sin-fa-ha is the root of that word which denotes fornication/ touch. If you read the notes of Lane he mentions

In the Time of Ignorance, when a man demanded a woman in marriage, he said, inkahini and when he desired fornication, he said, sahifini.

http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume4/00000093.pdf

It says to be ghayr masafaheen do not be touched in a fornicative matter! How can you justify sex outside of marriage then?

Now you mention 2431 as strong proof. Let me ask do you think the verse is allowing sexual counters with their fathers, or husbands fathers, or their sons etc etc? I THINK NOT. Seriously read the verse in context plus consider the grammar. in this verse i do not think MMA refers to spouse but rather used as an expression referring in general to one?s close dependants or domestic servants of either sex.

I don?t see how 2433 has anything to do with allowance of sexual acts. Read 2431 to 33. Read it in context. There is clear indication that touch is not allowed ?do not coerce them into baghaa (prostitution)?

That's what i think so far.