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

nimnimak_11

Peace David

I'll quote every verse you use in your last reply but please, be patient and give it fair thought

Quran 2430
Tell the believing men to lower their gaze and keep covered their private parts, for that is better for them. God is fully aware of what you do

The exception to this are Spouses and MMAs 235-6

Quran 235
And they keep covered their private parts.

With the exceptions of thos already stated

Quran 6151
Say Come let me recite what your Lord has made unlawful for you that you should not set up anything with Him; and do good to your parents; and do not kill your children for fear of poverty, We provide for you and for them; and do not come near lewdness, what is evident of it and what is subtle; and do not take the life which God has made forbidden, except in justice. That is what He enjoined you that you may comprehend.

How can you judge physical relations with MMA to mean lewd when physical relations with zawj is not lewd?

Quran, 55
Today, the good things have been made lawful to you, and the food of those who have been given the Book is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them; and the protected females from those who are believers, and the protected females from those who have been given the Book before you, if you have given them their dowries, protected, chaste, and not seeking to take lovers. And whoever rejects belief, then his work has fallen, and in the Hereafter he is of the losers.

This is in the case of marriage as there is reference to dowrie which is of marriage. But this is an interesting verse as technically, you cannot marry a muhsina (protected females) unless they are of MMA. But still this does not imply incompatibility of physical relations with MMA.

Quran 2431
Tell the acknowledging women to lower their gaze and guard their private parts,
and that they should not show off their attraction except what is apparent, and
let them cast their clothes over their cleavage. Let them not show off their attraction
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 children that come after them,
or those who are still their dependants, or the male servants who are without need,
or the child who has not yet understood the nakedness of women. Let them not
strike with their feet in a manner that reveals what they are keeping hidden of
their attraction. Repent to God, all of you acknowledgers, so that you may
succeed.

For some reason, something crucial is missing from that verse. Here it is again with what was missed out highlighted in bold

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(MMA), or the male servants who are without need, or the child who has not yet understood the composition of women. And let them not strike with their feet in a manner that reveals what they are keeping hidden of their beauty. And repent to God, all of you believers, that you may succeed.

From where do we see an incompatibility of physical relations with MMA from the verses you quoted in your last post on the other thread?

unknownuser

peace nima

I don't like to use more time on the "topic of marriage and relationships on this thread". I have already gotten the answers i need. It is just like being a customer and looking at bikes in a store. If you are only going to buy a bike, you don't want to use more time than necessary in that shop. You leave as soon as you bought the bike. My time is valuable and i want to focus on other things in my life and discuss other topics in this forum. But if you have any questions regarding the verses in your last post, ask other members and they will probably answer them. Or as i have already adviced you Do your own research by reading articles and books on the topic of marriage and relationships between men and women.

unknownuser

Peace Leyna

Okay. I misunderstood you then, because you wrote "many of the scholars of Islam". And most of the scholars are more or less traditionally oriented.

You are right, most of the scholars are more or less traditionally oriented. So i take that back. Let's say some of the scholars instead of many.

But I'll check out the views of some of those you mentioned above.

Yes, do it.

Oops, sorry! I didn't intentionally avoid answering any questions. Will go back and check. peace

No problem ) If you don't want everyone to know the answers of those questions, you don't need to answer them. Or if you want you can send me a pm with the answers. That would be cool.

nimnimak_11

peace nima

I don't like to use more time on the "topic of marriage and relationships on this thread". I have already gotten the answers i need. It is just like being a customer and looking at bikes in a store. If you are only going to buy a bike, you don't want to use more time than necessary in that shop. You leave as soon as you bought the bike. My time is valuable and i want to focus on other things in my life and discuss other topics in this forum. But if you have any questions regarding the verses in your last post, ask other members and they will probably answer them. Or as i have already adviced you Do your own research by reading articles and books on the topic of marriage and relationships between men and women.

Peace David

No problem. I have no questions regarding the verses in the last post, but found one interesting after looking a second time. So thanks.

Leyna

But no secular laws protects women and children as the laws in the Quran. The system of islam (not religion) in the Quran, have laws in it that are ahead of time and have not even been established in secular countries. It may take hundreds of years before these laws will be accepted, appreciated, and established.

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

You seem like an open-minded girl, which i think is good. How old are you? And are you a convert? just curious.

I am old enough to not call myself a girl anymore. And, no, I never officially converted and don't intend to, for various reasons. One is my rejection of the Sunni shahada. Another is that I believe religion is a private matter, and I don't need to attach an official label on myself in order to practice my beliefs.

Leyna

The article (There's a paywall)
http//www.economist.com/world/united-states/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_JNTRTNS

Link behind the paywall
http//cpffoundation.org/frayedKnot.html

Unfortunately, I can't open either of those links.

I am not saying you are wrong, btw., but I would prefer to see some proof regarding your statement that unmarried couples are more likely to split up than married ones.

peace

Think about it logically - this is about the psychology of motivation - when a person promises to do something, it makes it more likely they will follow through. Whey make that promise in front of friends and family, that is every stronger motivation. The way peer pressure influences human beings is very well established. That's the whole point of marriage.

I understand what you're saying, but my point was that a couple who lives together, declares to everyone that they belong together, include their extended families and so on are basically making a public promise.

rraza

Unfortunately, I can't open either of those links.

I am not saying you are wrong, btw., but I would prefer to see some proof regarding your statement that unmarried couples are more likely to split up than married ones.

peace

I understand what you're saying, but my point was that a couple who lives together, declares to everyone that they belong together, include their extended families and so on are basically making a public promise.

i agree that ppl who are living together and declare to evryone that they are together wud basically be married in the eyes of God, But only IF they are very serious about each other..then again i dont get why not just get married..its the same thing..only with the added security of a marriage contract..my experience is that ppl talk a LOT about marriage and how they want to marry the other person..blah blah....and under the guise of that start taking advantage of the other person...so i tend to think that marriage protects the couple, reassures them of each others loyalty. even though i think many "legal" marriages lack that, its still good to be on the safer side..and theres no harm in signing a marriage contract with someone you love and care for..plus if there comes a time of disagreement and possible separation, its strongly suggested in quran that the couple shud get ppl to intermediate for them (the same ppl who were witness to their marriage i presume) and work towrds a possible reconciliation. this way, i think really protects the 2 ppl and discourages the idea of one of them just walking out on the other one fine day

unknownuser

Peace Leyna )

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

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

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

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

I also recommend this book

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

Have a nice day

Leyna

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

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

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

Also

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

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

From the German constitution

Article 3 (Equality before the law)

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

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

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

I also recommend this book

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

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

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

Wakas

peace Leyna, all,

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

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

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

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

Leyna

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

peace

Wakas

peace Leyna,

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

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

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

Bigmo

Hold your horses big man.

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

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

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

Among the Israelites, it was common for men to acknowledge their concubines, and such women enjoyed the same rights in the house as legitimate wives. The principal difference in the Bible between a wife and a concubine is that wives had dowries, while concubines did not.

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

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

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

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

According to the Babylonian Talmud, the difference between a concubine and a full wife was that the latter received a marriage contract (Hebrewketubah) and her marriage (nissu'in) was preceded by a formal betrothal (erusin), neither being the case for a concubine. However, one opinion in the Jerusalem Talmud argues that the concubine should also receive a marriage contract, but without including a clause specifying a divorce settlement.

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

Maimonides was not the first Jewish thinker to criticise concubinage; for example, it is severely condemned in Leviticus Rabbah. Other Jewish thinkers, such as Nahmanides, Samuel ben Uri Shraga Phoebus, and Jacob Emden, strongly object to the idea that concubines should be forbidden.

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

Bigmo