How sex before Marriage is not haram (prohibited) according to the Quran
-
Couldn't it be argued that this is only in the case of when an MMA is being considered for marriage that it should be the case that they are for example not lustful? It doesn't really cover the idea that an MMA necessarily must be a bond that involves love and affection. But that if an MMA is considered for marriage, then it should be the case that the MMA has those attributes.
-
It is worth looking at some translations of the word MMA; Please see the translations of Asad & Shabir;
Edip-Layth 7030 Except around their spouses or those committed to by oath, there is no blame.
The Monotheist Group 7030 Except around their spouses or those committed to by oath, there is no blame
Muhammad Asad 7030 with any but their spouses - that is, those whom they rightfully possess - 13 for then, behold, they are free of all blame,
Shabbir Ahmed 7030 They have intimate relations only with their spouses - that is, those who are rightfully theirs through wedlock. For such relationship they are free of blame. 4
The MMA's are your legal wives , not women for use and dispose of or rather not take any responsibility for.
Peace 357
Apologies for late reply,
I don't agree with their interpretation because there is a word that seperates zawj and MMA in that verse
http//corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=23&verse=6It might be argued that the use of the word "or" conveys that the status of MMA is entailed by being zawj . They are zawj and that to be zawj it must be the case that they are of those whom your oaths possess, but I can't see why MMA would then be mentioned in the verse if it is entailed by zawj.
Also if you look at 423-24, it implies that a zawj is different to an MMA. You marry an MMA, it is not the case that the MMA is already your zawj. So there is a distinction between the two as far as I can see.
not women for use and dispose of or rather not take any responsibility for
If both sides are reasonably in agreement, then both sides are responsible not just the man. So if it becomes the case that the woman gets pregnant or catches an STD, she did what she did knowing the risks. She is responsible for that. Similarly, if the man gets her pregnant or he catches an STD, then he is responsible for that because he got himself involved knowing the risks. It may be that what he did ultimately resulted in more gain than harm or more harm than gain but I don't see anything inherently wrong in having sex just for the sake of pleasure.
The question is whether the risks involved are justified from a moral perspective. Unwanted Kids and STDs lead me to believe that unless it is 100 percent safe, then it is not justified. Thus I would argue something like anything with the exception of penetration is acceptable with an MMA so long as it does not constitute lewdness or transgression. But I don't think anything is inherently wrong in having sex outside of marriage.
There is also another thing to consider. What if a couple who are not married want to have kids without being married. Is there any good reason to stop them from doing so?
-
Couldn't it be argued that this is only in the case of when an MMA is being considered for marriage that it should be the case that they are for example not lustful? It doesn't really cover the idea that an MMA necessarily must be a bond that involves love and affection. But that if an MMA is considered for marriage, then it should be the case that the MMA has those attributes.
MMA arrangements are open for abuse. Its identical to whats known as a urfi marriage. MMA usually does not have strong family backing and financial backing and often can be abused. The Quran did acknowledge such arrangement but encouraged its elevation to a proper marriage by informing family and establishing dowry.
Stunning revelation
"I didn't hide," a young woman named Hend El-Hinnawi said, live on prime-time, state-run TV. "We are living in a very hypocritical society... and eventually he will have to give the baby his name." The 27-year-old stylist had stunned the Arab world by filing a paternity suit against actor Ahmed El-Fishawi, the son of two Egyptian film stars.
El-Hinnawi claimed she had been in a secret urfi marriage with El-Fishawi -- a controversial mode of amorous consummation increasingly prevalent between Egypt's young -- and that he had possession of the only copy of the marriage contract; they had fallen out, she said, when, on conceiving, in lawful if not officially registered wedlock, she refused to have an abortion. To file a paternity suit, El-Hinnawi had to wait until the birth of her daughter Lina; such is the legal prerequisite. Initially denying any connection with El-Hinnawi, claiming he had only known her as a colleague, El-Fishawi later conceded that they had had an affair, not a marriage. The court ruling arrived faster than expected, perhaps due to the media attention the case received, and though he is now required to take a DNA test, El-Fishawi is refusing to do so.
Many have sympathised with El-Hinnawi, but just as many condemned her for going public. The saga brought urfi marriage to the forefront of public discourse, underlining the fact that, according to Ministry of Social Affairs statistics, there are some 14,000 paternity cases currently at court. Of these, lawyers and sociologists attribute 70-90 percent to urfi marriage. The phenomenon increased dramatically in the last decade, spreading in response to unemployment and inflation -- factors that acted to delay the marriage age. A way of sidestepping the social-economic requirements of marriage, urfi is sanctioned by religious scholars like Sayed Abul-Fotouh, professor of Islamic studies at Ain Shams University, but only if the matrimonial conditions stipulated by Sharia (Islamic law) are obtained mutual consent; two male (or one male and two female) witnesses; a dowry paid to the bride; and ishhar (public announcement). "If one or more of these conditions are absent," Abul-Fotouh warns, "the marriage is illegitimate from the religious viewpoint." In Egypt and much of the Arab world -- for Muslims and non-Muslims alike -- legitimate sex requires marriage, especially for a woman, and especially for the first time. In the provinces, notably Upper Egypt, pregnancy out of wedlock still sometimes results in the father or brother killing his daughter or sister to uphold the honour of the family. More often, particularly for those to whom abortion (and increasingly, in the surreal morality of today, hymen repair surgery) is available, sex out of wedlock will remain a well kept secret.
El-Hinnawi went against the grain of Egypt's very social fabric by insisting on having the child, and in so doing setting off not only a nation- wide scandal, but a heated debate about clandestine marriage contracts in a conservative, religious society. "The whole of society says, 'it's shameful. It's a scandal. Go have an abortion'..." Thus Attiyat El-Abnoudi, a well-known documentary filmmaker who, after hearing about the case, became so involved in it that she is now Lina's godmother. "The importance of this case is that it is out in the open. The whole of society must ask whether this is a one off, or whether something is changing -- young people want to make love without getting married."
Insofar as issues of sex are increasingly present on Arab TV screens -- even religious talk shows, hosted by veiled young women, discuss the fine points of intercourse; movies portray hymen- restoration clinics as busy places -- such change is definitely underway. Four organisations -- the New Woman, the Woman's Issues Centre, the Egyptian Child Centre and the Helwan Association for Developing Society -- have launched public campaigns to support El-Hinnawi's mode of approaching the matter. In another country El-Hinnawi's story might have provoked little more than gossip. But in Egypt it has brought traditional values face to face with social realities, prompting a wide-range discussion of a topic on which most people will tend to keep their mouths firmly shut.
On a personal level, it has also had negative consequences for El-Hinnawi's extended family. The decision by her well-to-do parents (her father is an economist, her mother a psychology professor) to support their daughter's move was definitely not unanimously lauded. Led by one uncle, her mother's side of the family has cut off all contact, while her father's relatives have grown distant and formal.
The walli is not required if the woman is a widow or a divorcee" (for which read not a virgin), so elaborated Sanaa El- Shami, a women rights lawyer, "in which case she can be her own walli ". Nor is the dowry a vital part of the contract "The bridegroom can read out a few lines of the Quran -- and that works as a dowry." If not for mutual consent and witnesses, by contrast, the marriage would be batel (null and void). The state apparatus did not incorporate Muslim marriage until 1929, in fact. "Which means that all our forebears were technically in Urfi marriages," Ibrahim smiles. With a smaller population, he elaborated, people lived in social and cultural proximity. Contrary to the present, when "you can live in an apartment building for 15 years and not know who lives in the adjoining flat, everyone knew who everyone was married to a man was never in any position to disown his legitimate child." To this day many tribal communities continue to practise customary marriage, but since 1929, with the urban population explosion, the concept of Urfi became the secret mode of amorous union it now is, imbuing a largely unacceptable social practise with a false sense of legitimacy. Fatma El-Kellini, the Ain Shams University Sociology Department head, the custom began to spread in the mid-1990s, in response to deteriorating economic conditions -- unemployment and inflation -- which had acted to delay the marriage age. In comparison to its by now conventional counterpart -- a project in which families play as much of a part as the bride and groom -- Urfi marriage is both fast and inexpensive. In a Vogue interview published in May, El-Hinnawi said as much, explaining that she preferred "privacy and expediency" to months of inter-familial negotiation. "Many young couples do it on a whim. They think they're making their dream come true," El-Kellini commented. "They don't realise how devastating it can be for their lives -- especially for the girl, who will end up pregnant..."
Economic hardship is not the only factor, though. Ola, 26, was brought up by her aunt after her parents were separated; and none of her four siblings had any part to play in her life. At 15 her cousin Mohamed, 20 years her senior, proposed to her -- only to be turned down brutally by her aunt. When her parents died, one after the other, Ola felt even more isolated; she would reject one suitor after another, "because I couldn't trust them not to abuse me, having no one as I was", and when Mohamed, by then married with two children, proposed a Urfi arrangement, she conceded despite her aunt's refusal "He said he hated his wife, but didn't want to separate to protect his daughter; he was a wonderful father." Mohamed bought Ola a flat in 6th of October City, and they had a brief honeymoon before he failed to show up at his usual hour; when Ola called to find out what was wrong, she had the shock of her life "He'd been so nice, and loving. Everything I had imagined. Now he divorced me right there on the phone. He had just wanted me for sex, he said, and now he was satisfied. We were married for a total of 10 days." Like El-Hinnawi, Ola could not prove that she had been married "This was his condition, that the paper should stay with him." Desperately, she filed a proof-of-marriage suit, which was eventually rejected "No evidence."
While Ola blamed her choice of Urfi marriage on difficult circumstances, Mahmoud Ahmed, head of the Hope Village rehabilitation centres, the incidence of Urfi marriage is rising among street girls -- the focus of the organisation's work for the last four years "We had initially planned to use the rehabilitation system we had been applying to boys since 1989, but we were suddenly faced with a dilemma many of the girls were pregnant and needed different treatment." A shelter was established for "young mothers" inaugurated on 25 May, it had already accommodated them for a month. Hoda, one such residents, was only 15 when she gave birth to Ali five months ago; her father had forced her into a Urfi marriage with a rich old man from the Gulf. Once pregnant she was brought back to her father, again with no evidence of marriage, and he registered the child as his own. When she left the house, therefore, she could not take Ali with her -- her father having refused to let her have him "I have no official proof of anything. But let him have the child if he wants it," she smiled. "I'm not into this baby business anyway." For Nermeen, 20, another resident, Urfi marriage was her only way out of street life, which she had suffered since her stepmother threw her out of the house "I used to hang around Ramses Square; and that's where I met Ahmed." Many of her friends, married in the same way, were about to leave her...
"I was afraid," she said. "So I thought I'd do as they did." She was below the minimum legal age for marriage (16), and Ahmed did not possess an identity card; Urfi was the only option. Three months later she was pregnant, but Ahmed wouldn't hear of having a conventional wedding "He tore up our contract. A few days later while I was sleeping on Ramses Road, he came and took away my child. I haven't seen him since. He's two now. Some people say he died, but my heart tells me he's alive." Yet as if this was not enough, very shortly afterwards, Hoda had her second Urfi wedding "I wanted someone to protect me and Yehya promised he would." Having beaten her on their first day as husband and wife, however, Yehia continued to do so -- until, while three months pregnant, she fled back to the street. The baby soon died "It was cold and I had nowhere to go." To be grateful for a burial licence -- "I had no proof of marriage and could've made a debauchery case against me" -- was all she could do. Indeed in the absence of evidence of marriage, many such young women have been unable to obtain birth certificates for their children. And in the light of the fact that a paternity suit can take months and even years to be concluded, as Ibrahim puts it, "they remain nameless beings -- as they emerged out of thin air." They have neither rights nor privileges. As these women learn, the hard way, a life without a birth certificate is no fun. Zeinat came to Cairo from Luxor along with her mother following a divorce. Living on the street, the mother sought Urfi marriage to obtain shelter for herself; and so did Zeinat. When she was three months pregnant the husband tore up the paper and left -- never to be seen again. As a result Basel, Zeinat's son, remains officially nameless -- without a birth certificate -- and Zeinat has come to discover some of the consequent problems "When I tried to have him vaccinated at the age of nine months like every other baby, I was sent away. They said they couldn't be certain he was really nine months. They wouldn't take my word for it at all."
There are countless circumstances that lead to Urfi marriage. Ibrahim tells of a woman turning up to file a divorce suit -- whose contract turned out to be Urfi. To dodge the minimum age requirement, the maazoun (religious authority responsible for marriage and divorce) "had made it look so like an official contract only an expert could tell the difference". Many widows, besides, choose Urfi marriage in order not to lose pensions they receive. But aside from circumstances, it is proof of marriage that remains at the centre of the issue. On 29 January 2000, women were given the right to seek divorce by, among other ways, filing an authenticity-of- signature suit at a family court. As El-Shami points out, however, winning such a suit does not give the marriage official sanction -- far from it "It simply allows the woman to file a divorce or a paternity suit -- that's all." Proof-of-marriage suits are different altogether, as Ibrahim explains they can be based on the contract or any other evidence including letters or witnesses. What many fail to realise is that, according to Sharia, tearing up a Urfi contract does not amount to divorce. El-Hinnawi had told Vogue, "I figured that if things didn't work out, we would simply agree to destroy the contract, which is tantamount to a divorce." Besides the complete termination of any existing copies of the contact, Sharia requires the man to say the words, "I divorce you"; otherwise, on seeking another marriage later on, a woman could be accused of polyandry. Where a child enters the scenario, it is only given a first name until a paternity suit is concluded -- something all the more complicated by the fact that, according to the present laws, DNA tests remain optional it is up to the judge to decide if one is necessary; they are also expensive. El-Shami is calling for both making the test compulsory and postponing payment until the results are out and a verdict pronounced "If positive, the man pays; if negative, the woman does..."
According to the law, any woman can file a paternity suit, whether or not she is married. But if it turns out she is lying, El-Shami goes on, "the woman is subject to being fined or even a prison sentence". Many women rights organisations -- El-Shami's among them -- are seeking an answer to the Urfi dilemma. To eliminate them altogether, one would have to "allow some time for all present cases to be presented to court", but even then, people would in all probability continue to engage in the practise, the way they did before 2000, when women didn't even have the right to file a proof-of-marriage suit. More effective, perhaps, would be giving the female partner in an Urfi marriage all the rights of a conventionally married wife. Ola agrees with the latter "Men seek Urfi marriage as a way to dodge the responsibilities of a conventional marriage. If women have the same rights, men would think twice before doing it. But until then it will remain a backdoor for all men, a marriage of convenience -- no fighting, no problems. You can quit once you've had enough."
http//weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/775/eg93.htm
-
MMA arrangements are open for abuse. Its identical to whats known as a urfi marriage. MMA usually does not have strong family backing and financial backing and often can be abused. The Quran did acknowledge such arrangement but encouraged its elevation to a proper marriage by informing family and establishing dowry.
I know it can be abused dramatically but so can so many other things like the internet. What falls under just, reasonable, responsible and so on would have it's own dictates on how far someone goes with an MMA or what exactly is involved with an MMA.
I'm guessing that a believer would never sleep with their MMA unless they reasoned that it was good. In marriage there is legal protection and also a bigger commitment involved. But some may just want to have sex for pleasure and may want no commitments. When there is deception and irresponsiblity by one individual and this causes harm, then this can be punishable like other things such as a misuse of the internet to lure kids or women in.
I don't see restrictions from a Quranic perspective at the moment.
-
Salaam Niminak
I would like to retract everything i have said as i did not fully understand what MMA meant. Also, i feel i need to study the Quran, and the way of Allah a lot more.
Thanks.
I hope you succeed
-
Peace
I said I was going to do a summary of the thread on Quran with regards to the topic of Ma Malekat Aymunkum (MMA) but I keep running into something new and also i've been preoccupied with other stuff so i havn't give this much priority to be honest. I'l post what I have right now.
Some important verses with regards to MMA
235-6 (We can unguard our private parts to the MMA)
423-24 (Cannot marry the Muhsinat women unless/until they are MMA)
425 (This verse looks to me like it?s implying that the fatayat are also forbidden unless/until they are MMA)From the above verses alone, I conclude that MMA at least entails something like a fianc? or girlfriend of some sort. Specifically when we look at how a Muhsinat must be of MMA before being permitted for marriage.
The strongest proof against MMA exclusively meaning fianc? or girlfriend in my opnion is the following (which i have quoted from Aalmakto?s post)
This is what he posted
3353 O you who believe, do not enter the homes of the prophet unless you are invited to a meal, without you forcing such an invitation. But if you are invited, you may enter. And when you finish eating, you shall leave, without staying to wait for a narrative. This used to bother the prophet, and he was shy to tell you. But God does not shy away from the truth. And if you ask his wives for something, ask them from behind a barrier. This is purer for your hearts and their hearts. And it is not for you to harm the messenger of God, nor that you should marry his wives after him. This is indeed a gross offence with God.
3354 If you reveal anything, or hide it, God is fully aware of all things.
3355 There is no sin upon them before their fathers, or their sons, or their brothers, or the sons of their brothers, or the sons of their sisters, or their women, or those who are maintained by their oaths. And be aware of God, for God is witness over all things.
Basically what I am getting at is. It is not pure for men to ask the Prophet's wives "something" unless behind a barrier.... EXCEPT for the Prophet's Wives fathers, sons etc. and MMAs (see the Arabic, it is clearly about them). So verse 3355 is implying that the Prophet's wives had MMAs!Looking at this, I don?t think that it would make sense for MMA to exclusively mean a girlfriend/boyfriend or fianc?. That would then mean that the prophet's wives had boyfriends, which appears to make no sense. It has been suggested that MMA has multiple meanings. I agree and i think that a finace or boyfriend/girlfriend could be one of the meanings it entails. I think this because I cannot see MMA to mean gf/bf in 3353-55 whilst I cannot see it to mean anything other than gf/bf when we look at 423-24 with regards to the muhsinat.
In short, MMA can mean various things. A girlfriend/boyfriend is amongst the possible things that an MMA can entail. All things with an MMA are possible, so long as it does not count as lewdness (fahisha)
Another verse that was posted as an objections was 2433 More specifically this part
2433 ?....And let those who are not able to marry continue to abstain until God enriches them of His Bounty.?
What someone takes as abstain here is another limitation of MMA. If you take abstain as sex, then no sex with MMA. This is subjective and some may have a stricter view such as minimal physical contact or possibly a less strict view than sex such as abstaining from the kind of sex that leads to kids (unprotected sex).
My personal opinion here is that abstain is referring to marriage. So basically ?let those who are not able to marry continue to abstain..? As in abstain from marriage until they have the resources in place (such as a house or whatever else is important for marriage) which is suggested by 2433 in the part ?until God enriches them of Its bounty?. I personally don't see how being enriched by the God's bounty relates to sex in this particular case thus I don't see how abstain could be referring to sex.Another verse to consider is 2237
And if ye divorce them before tamasshunna, but after the fixation of a dower for them, then half of the dower (Is due to them), unless they remit it or (the man's half) is remitted by him in whose hands is the marriage tie; and the remission (of the man's half) is the nearest to righteousness. And do not forget Liberality between yourselves. For Allah sees well all that ye do.The root of tamassuhunna
Miim-Siin-Siin = To meet or touch or feel a thing with the hand, touch a thing without intervention or interference, strike or smite, afflict or befall, be distressing or difficult of accomplishment.
You might also want to check out the following links for more details on the potential meanings of this root
http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume7/00000239.pdf (start at the far right of this page when it begins with Mim-Siin)
http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume7/00000240.pdfIn 2237 the word tamassuhunna is important. If the word means touch, then we need to determine what kind of touch is being talked about here. It would be highly unreasonable to think that any sort of physical contact is constituted as tamassuhunna in the context of 2237. Here is a cross-reference of the term in the Quran
http//corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=mss#(22376)
In 347 it is clear that Mary is referring to the sort of touch that potentially leads to a child
?She said "My Lord, how can I have a son when no human hasyamsasn (touch(ed)) me?" He said "It is thus that God creates what He wills, when He decrees a command, He merely says to it 'Be,' and it is.??Thus from this we might say that in 2237, tamassuhunna refers to the sort of touch that leads to a child. This means unprotected sex. However since protected sex does not 100 percent guarantee to prevent potential pregnancies and is thus not 100 percent protection, then it might be the case that it is not a sufficient measure.
Despite 2237, it can still be argued that sex is not exclusive to marriage. This verse highlights that should it be the case that one marries, then these considerations and guidelines will enter. If one however does not marry, then these consideration to not apply. But I think it more reasonable to place the limit of 100% protection on sex with MMA then not and 2237 can be used to defend this.
Consider the following verse 424 And the independent (muhsinat) from the women, except those maintained by your oaths; the book of God over you; and permitted for you is what is beyond this, if you are seeking with your money to be independent, not for illicit sex. As for those whom you have already had joy with, then you shall give them their dowries as an obligation. There is no sin upon you for what you agree on after the obligation. God is Knowledgeable, Wise.
Here i think it is emphasising that when you approach someone for marriage (since the whole context is about who is permissible for marriage) it must be the case that your intention must be that you use your resources for the sake of establishing independence along side them not just having sex with them. Such a mentality is unacceptable for marriage. But is it unacceptable with an MMA? I personally don't think so provided that whatever is done between the two guarantees that no child will come of it.
There is more on this that was discussed on the thread. I'l post it later on when I have looked at it and organised it properly.
-
Another comment in the forums important for a summary of the thread
The comment was directed at 2433 ?....And let those who are not able to marry continue to abstain until God enriches them of His Bounty.?
I don't understand nimnimak_11, if they are not able to marry they'll obviously refrain from marriage since they are not able to marry? That is what "not being able to marry" would mean as it is? It is obviously pointing at something other than refraining from marriage as not being able to marry automatically means that they can't but refrain from marriage. You can refrain if you have the option to do something.
Here it was suggested that only those who have the means to marry, can marry thus the abstaining here refers to something other than marriage since the individual who lacks the means for marriage cannot marry and it is thus impossible. If this is the case, then obviously it must follow that abstain most likely refers to sex and so abstinence from sex is necessary. But given other verses 235-6 and the usage of the word touch, I believe that this only applies to unprotected sex which would then make sense as to ungaurd our private parts to our MMA and why the muhsinat and the fatayat must be of MMA before marrying them.
Whilst I was in agreement with the above comment in the past, I changed mind. The verse is referring to those who don't have the means for marriage. Is the word means in this verse referring to necessary requirements for marriage such as witnesses and a relevant authority to enforce the marriage or is it referring to something like wealth? I think that it refers to something like wealth since witness and other conditions are almost always available and so marriage is possible as opposed to impossible. This is further implied by the following 2433 "...until God enriches them of His Bounty"
So here the means are pretty much always there for marriage. What isn't always there is the wealth and other like factors that contribute to a potentially good marriage. Thus in my opinion abstain refers to marriage because even thought it is possible to get married, we should abstain until the God enriches us of It's bounty because that is the best time or the appropriate time to marry.
-
Other verses of interests
2222 And they ask you about the menstruations? Say "It is harmful, so keep away (sexually abstain?) from the women during the menstruations, and do not approach them until they are cleansed. When they are cleansed, then you may approach them as God has commanded you." God loves the repenters and He loves the cleansed.
Here the word zawj is not used. Thus this limit must also refer to MMA also.
2226 For those who abstain from their women, they shall be given four months. If they cease, then God is Forgiving, Merciful.
It might be of interest to note that the word translated as abstain is yu'lna which in this case it appears to mean "swear off"
the root of the word is Alif-Lam-Waw = fall short of doing the requisite/flag/remiss, slow/tardy/languid/weak, did not leave/quit/cease from/omit/neglect, swear, possessor, one who is superintended an affair, as far as/until, in addition to/joined to any other thing, to me, decreed against/revealed/on the
http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume1/00000120.pdf
http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume1/00000121.pdf
http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume1/00000122.pdf
http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume1/00000123.pdf2227 And if they insist on the divorce, then God is Hearer, Knowledgeable.
In 2226 it also uses nisa as oppossed to zawj and 2227 mentions divorce.
2228 And those divorced shall wait for three menstruation periods; and it is not lawful for them to conceal what God has created in their wombs, if they believe in God and the Last Day. And their husbands (wabulatuhunna) would then have just cause to return together, if they both wish to reconcile. And the obligations owed to them are to be fulfilled, as are the obligations owed by them. But the men will have a greater responsibility over them in this. And God is Noble, Wise.
2228 mentions divorce again. This appears make divorce as something that's exclusive to marriage since husbands are mentioned which implies marriage
2229 The divorce is allowed twice. So, either they remain together equitably, or they part ways with goodness. And it is not lawful for you to take back anything you have given them unless you fear that they will not uphold the boundaries of God. So if you fear that they will not uphold the boundaries of God, then there is no sin upon them for what is given back. These are the boundaries of God so do not transgress them. And whoever shall transgress the boundaries of God, then these are the wicked.
2230 So if he divorces her again, then she will not be lawful for him until after she has married a different husband (zawj); if he divorces her; then there is no sin that they come back together if they think they will uphold the boundaries of God. These are the boundaries of God, He clarifies them for a people who know.
Interestingly here the term for husband used is zawj where as back in 2228 it was wabulatuhunna
2231 And if you have divorced the women, and they have reached their required interim period, then either you remain together equitably, or part ways equitably. And do not reconcile with them so you can harm them out of animosity; whoever does so is doing wrong to his soul; and do not take the revelations of God as mockery. And remember the blessings of God upon you, and what was sent down to you of the Book and the wisdom, He warns you with it. And be aware of God and know that God is knowledgeable of all things.
2232 And if you divorce the women, and they reach their required interim period, then do not make difficulty for them if they wish to remarry their husbands if they have amicably agreed among themselves out of what is best. This is to remind any of you who believe in God and the Last Day, this is better for you and purer; and God knows while you do not know.
2233 And the divorced mothers are allowed to suckle their children two full years, if they wish to complete the suckling. And the man for whom the child is born is responsible for both their provisions and clothing equitably. A soul is not burdened except with what it can bear. No mother shall be harmed because of her child, nor shall a father be harmed because of his child. And for the guardian is the same requirement. So if they wish to separate out of mutual agreement and counsel, then there is no sin upon them. And if you want to hire nursing mothers, then there is no sin upon you if you return what you have been given equitably. And be aware of God, and know that God is watching over what you do.
2234 And for those of you whose lives are terminated and they leave widows behind, then their widows will have a required interim period of four months and ten. So when they reach their required interim, then there is no sin upon you for what they do with themselves in goodness. And God is Expert to what you do.
2235 And there is no sin upon you if you openly propose marriage to the women, or you keep it between yourselves. God knows that you will be thinking about them, but do not meet them secretly, unless you have something righteous to say. And do not finalize the marriage contract until the book interim is reached. And know that God knows what is in your souls, so be aware of Him, and know that God is Forgiving, Compassionate.
Its been suggested that these verses imply that sex is exclusive to marriage since there are no similar guidelines given with regards to sexual relations with the MMA. Thus it's worth mentioning in the summary.
-
I don't know, seems a little strange how the Koran seems to take on completely different meanings and acts which were interpreted as haram for centuries seem to magically become permissible once the Koran gets completely dissected as the roots of certain words are taken as more reliable a guide to interpreting the book than virtually universally accepted definitions.
-
I don't know, seems a little strange how the Koran seems to take on completely different meanings and acts which were interpreted as haram for centuries seem to magically become permissible once the Koran gets completely dissected as the roots of certain words are taken as more reliable a guide to interpreting the book than virtually universally accepted definitions.
Good point. I don't trust this at all.
-
Salam All,
I haven't read all the posts, so please bear with me..
what I don't get it is that why would the prophet Yousuf(Joseph) AS cares so much about his chastity and not take the offer of his mistress if it wasn't because he want's to guard his farj without a wedlock?
Salam,
Johan -
Salam All,
I haven't read all the posts, so please bear with me..
what I don't get it is that why would the prophet Yousuf(Joseph) AS cares so much about his chastity and not take the offer of his mistress if it wasn't because he want's to guard his farj without a wedlock?
Salam,
JohanSalam Johan
1225 And as they rushed towards the door, she tore his shirt from behind; and they found her master at the door. She said "What is the punishment for he who wanted evil for your family? Is it not that he be imprisoned or punished painfully?"
1230 And some women in the city said "The wife of the governor is trying to seduce her young man from himself; she is taken by love. We see her clearly misguided."
In the case of Joseph it would have been adultry since it was the wife of the governor who was trying to seduce him.
There are some issues though. In 1230 the term that is translated to wife is im'ra-atu. The root of it is mm r hamza. It's not clear that this means wife but in other verses where the same term is used, it is interpreted to mean wife and no other meaning seems to fix the context of those verses.With regards to the prophet it is not clear whether he had previously slept with other single women or not when he was being seduced. It could be said that in this case he knew it was wrong because it would be sleeping with someone else's wife which is obviously disgraceful.
-
I don't know, seems a little strange how the Koran seems to take on completely different meanings and acts which were interpreted as haram for centuries seem to magically become permissible once the Koran gets completely dissected as the roots of certain words are taken as more reliable a guide to interpreting the book than virtually universally accepted definitions.
MMA is pretty clear in its meaning. 235-6 places restrictions on whom we can unguard our private parts to (zawj and MMA) 423-25 makes clear that we can't marry the muhsinat without them being MMA first (this when taken with 235-6 implies a relationship in which it is permissible for the private parts to be unguarded)
Hypothetically (as far as i can see) there are 2 ways in which the Quran may be prohibiting sex with the MMA
-
the word fahisha (lewdness) or zina. If any of them necessarily and explicitly entail any sexual act outside of marriage (nikah) then there is a restriction via this word.
-
2221-2237 appropriately and adequately implies that sex is exclusive for marriage.
I'm pretty sure that 1) is unlikely to be true but someone skilled in arabic and with good Quranic knowledge would need to verify that as i cannot.
with regards to 2) i'm not so sure. Cross-referencing the word tamassuhunna (touched) which occurs in 2237 lead to 347 where in which marry asks how can i have a child when no man has (touched) me which lead me to believe that the tammsuhunna used in 2237 refers to the sort of touch that leads to kids (unprotected sex) whether thisentails protected sex or sexual acts that do no involve penetration is something that i don't believe at the moment and because of MMA and 423-25 I think it's likely that sexual acts that make the possibility of a child 0 are permissible outside of marriage.
This is more a case of cross-referencing terms rather than assessing roots.
-
-
Double post accident
-
The important question regarding sex is whether the focus of the Quran is on the sperm entering the woman or just the act of sex or perhaps both. I doubt that it is both since for a woman to have sex with someone or to just have someone else's sperm put in her surgically are two entirely different things.
Is it Quranically acceptable for an unmarried woman to get pregnant without having sex (sperm donor). From 2221-237 it can be argued no it is not acceptable.
2233 And the divorced mothers are allowed to suckle their children two full years, if they wish to complete the suckling. And the man for whom the child is born is responsible for both their provisions and clothing equitably. A soul is not burdened except with what it can bear. No mother shall be harmed because of her child, nor shall a father be harmed because of his child. And for the guardian is the same requirement. So if they wish to separate out of mutual agreement and counsel, then there is no sin upon them. And if you want to hire nursing mothers, then there is no sin upon you if you return what you have been given equitably. And be aware of God, and know that God is watching over what you do.
2228 And those divorced shall wait for three menstruation periods; and it is not lawful for them to conceal what God has created in their wombs, if they believe in God and the Last Day. And their husbands would then have just cause to return together, if they both wish to reconcile. And the obligations owed to them are to be fulfilled, as are the obligations owed by them. But the men will have a greater responsibility over them in this. And God is Noble, Wise.
If in these verses, the father is also the husband then the prohibition may be implied. If this is not the case, then there is no prohibition on sperm donors.
-
Salam Johan
1225 And as they rushed towards the door, she tore his shirt from behind; and they found her master at the door. She said "What is the punishment for he who wanted evil for your family? Is it not that he be imprisoned or punished painfully?"
1230 And some women in the city said "The wife of the governor is trying to seduce her young man from himself; she is taken by love. We see her clearly misguided."
In the case of Joseph it would have been adultry since it was the wife of the governor who was trying to seduce him.
There are some issues though. In 1230 the term that is translated to wife is im'ra-atu. The root of it is mm r hamza. It's not clear that this means wife but in other verses where the same term is used, it is interpreted to mean wife and no other meaning seems to fix the context of those verses.With regards to the prophet it is not clear whether he had previously slept with other single women or not when he was being seduced. It could be said that in this case he knew it was wrong because it would be sleeping with someone else's wife which is obviously disgraceful.
salam nimnimak,
imho marriage/wedlock is a way to proclaim to the public that so and so is my spouse.
if without my consent my spouse commits adultry then it's deemed immoral..we can agree to this..let's say we exchange the notion of wedlock with that of gf/bf..
how would anyone know whether one has another gf/bf in he(r/s) "portfolio" if it's not known by the public?
would it be immoral for another to have sex with you even though they didn't know that you are with another gf/bf?
wouldn't it just causes too much complication if publicizing your relation with another is made irrelevant?peace
-
I can't remember if I posted this earlier but I'll post it anyway.
The clearest argument regarding who to punish for zina is in the example of a person and their legal partner, and a third party who cheats with one of them.
If the third party has no knowledge of the partnership then if 'zina' is restricted to adultery, the question of whether to punish this person for cheating with becomes ambiguous the person who has been betrayed has experienced evil from TWO people, not one and both of those committed it on purpose. Of course if a person fled their marriage and married another person without notifying the new partner about the prior marriage then the blame is wholly on that person.
Conversely if zina applies totally to any form of non-official relationship then the person cheating on their partner AND the one cheating with them are to be punished. This is straightforward, simple and arguably perfectly just in the sense that there is no grey area where an innocent person may be found to be punished nor can a guilty one feign innocence and get away with it.
As such it is then self-evident that all sexual contact is strictly restricted to relationships backed by official recognition. No secrecy, no pump'n'dump.
-
IAMOP, your theory doesn't seem to hold water. Married men/women can still lie to people that they want to cheat with and claim that they're not married, and bf/gf relationships do not have to be secret, in fact most bf/gf relationships are made known to almost everyone close to them which includes parents. This is especially true in the west, where my non muslim friends are in a relationship, almost every one of their acquaintances will know about it. Your view that marriage=widely known, relationships=secret is obviously not true.
-
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.