How sex before Marriage is not haram (prohibited) according to the Quran
-
Sarah
Now one of the most important points i should address is in 2433 it talks about writing for the MMA if there is any good in them.
Specifically them is used Fihim in arabic. It is a masculine plural word. In Arabic grammar a masculine plural word can only refer to a group of males, or a mix of male and female. It can NEVER be females only.
It's interesting that it should use a mix plural word, thanks for pointing out. It can't surely refer to males only given the context. But I see your point of view. My main issue with it is that 423-25 implies that for the men to marry the muhsineen and the fatayat, they (the fatayat and the muhsineen) must first be MMA. This leads me to further conclude that before you marry a the muhsineen or the fatayat, whether male or female, they need be MMA first then if you see good in them, marry them. This guideline then applies to both men and women with regards to when they pursue a marriage partner.
This is sort of coherent with 2237 in my opinion.
My understanding of writing to them and giving wealth has links to the previous verse; that is they stay chaste
Where did you get chaste from? If your referring abstain, then I don't believe abstain in here is referring to chastity. especially given 235-6.
God knows best indeed, hopefully we'l better our understanding on what the best way to bring about the full potential of love, happiness and goodness in a relationship is.
-
If Sarah's perspective is that it's referring to MMA being given wealth to allow for them to get married and the first half isn't referring to everyone generally then you'd need to see it from that angle and whether it's fitting/contradictions etc. I'd say it's an interesting view because we have 2433 now dealing with one subject, rather than disjointedly whenever I'd read it.
Yes but what about 423-25 and marrying the muhsinat and fatayat, given that they need to be MMA first before they are permissible for marriage.
I'm still not sure how refraining fits here, if we see 46...it's also denoting something that can be possibly be done/is what some could/might do (by those wanting to consume etc) and telling us not to do it.
In 46 it says the money that is the orphan's right should not be spent excessively or hastily. Then it says whoever is rich should refrain. In my opinion, given the earlier part of the verse, the refrain can only refer to one thing The rich should never take from the orphan's money because they are rich and for them to take would fall under the earlier part of the verse which is to be excessive because they are rich. If they were not rich, then their taking of the orphan's money would not be in excess. So in my opnion, refrain here is clarified by the earlier part of the verse.
It would seem that MMA marriage is dependent on wealth as in wealth is the requirement for the MMA to marry? That's why they need to wait? But that how would go with it's still something that can possibly be done/is what some could/might do but should refrain? Is it suggesting wealth should be a requirement and don't do it/better not to till you have it? Does wealth/bounty refer to something other than monetary/financial that the MMA would require for marriage? And even if it does, how can it be required if they can still do it but shouldn't?
It's like we think requirement X (whatever it is) is needed for the MMA to marry but refrain suggests it's not a requirement more like what you should/have to do. Maybe. Whenever I start on this topic it starts taunting me 'I'll never tell'.
I don't think that only the MMA are dependent on wealth. Everyone seeking to marry is dependent on wealth. But also since it appears to me that all need to be MMA first before they are married then you this is sort of the same as saying that only the MMA are dependent on wealth for marriage. I think for the marriage to be successful and good, wealth is one necessary aspect. For independence to happen properly, wealth is needed for house, food, children and so on.
That's why those who have not married (everyone, not just slaves) and don't have God's bounties should abstain...from marriage IMO. 2432 talks of slaves and their poorness and talks of God enriching them from his bounty regarding marriage. Thus 2433 must be referring to wealth and abstain from marrying rather than sex but not only with regards to slaves, but to all who are seeking to marry. 2432 specified slaves, then 2433 shifted this to all who seek marriage in my opnion.
-
Quote
This is the Apodosis clause responding to the preceding conditional situation. is the Prepositional + Possessive Phrase relating to circumstance of Relative Pronoun. And Relative Pronoun is explained by the Relative Clause . So it is clear that this type have one category house-maids, women without the protection of family and self earning-self employed. The other category is those wives of non believers who run away from their homeland to migrate to Muslim state where they become their responsibility, obligation and liability. Since they are house-maids and are the responsibility and in protection of a certain family, the permission of that household is required for marriage with them as stated afterwards.
I am not in disagreement that house maidens and wives of non believers who migrate can constitute Ma malekat aymunkum. What I'm arguing for is that the scope of ma malekat aymunkum is wider than just these two categories of people you have suggested. In my opnion, a doctor would also constitute as Ma malekat aymunkum in the sense that say he had to look at your parts for a diagnosis, there needs to be an oath between the two of you for that to take place without going against the Quran 2430-31.
My argument hinges on MMA being boyfirends/girlfriends, if you disagree with such a possibility, why would you say a boyfriend or girlfriend cannot constitute malekat aymunkum? What is there in the Quran that suggests that it cannot be that?
nimnimak_11The well known relationships like friend are never described by a clause having embedded complete sentence therein, and that too through a Relative Pronoun. Linguists might declare it a funny way of referring a frient or doctor.
The doctors examining the genitals of male or female for medical purposes and doctor executing the delivery of a pregnant women are already under oath of their profession. They need not take an oath with the visiting patient. -
nimnimak_11
The well known relationships like friend are never described by a clause having embedded complete sentence therein, and that too through a Relative Pronoun. Linguists might declare it a funny way of referring a frient or doctor.
The doctors examining the genitals of male or female for medical purposes and doctor executing the delivery of a pregnant women are already under oath of their profession. They need not take an oath with the visiting patient.Yes in the case of the Doctor, the oath is implicit, and obviously the patient that is to be seen knows that she will be seen by a man and has given consent to be seen by the man thereby both sides have each other's oaths and thus in my opinion this constitutes an MMA relation from both sides. How else via the Quran, would it be acceptable to expose the private parts given 2431.
By girlfriend/boyfriend, I wasn't referring to friendly relations between man and woman, I was referring to intimate and sexual relations between a man and woman and in my opinion since the man and woman have each other's oaths there is no restriction on them with regards to engaging in sexual activity (provided that the activity guarantees no children 2237)
-
Salam all,
I think what MMA entails is those that aren't raping him/her..
simplistic it may sound..
but KISS principle, loli'm still in the view of marriage as institutionalizing the financial (material/asset oriented) aspects of commitments.
there's only one doubt that currently popped out and i'm still trying to reconcile is the verse that talks about zawj and battha..Sahih International
O mankind, fear your Lord, who created you from one soul and created from it its mate and dispersed from both of them many men and women. And fear Allah, through whom you ask one another, and the wombs. Indeed Allah is ever, over you, an Observer.peace
-
By girlfriend/boyfriend, I wasn't referring to friendly relations between man and woman, I was referring to intimate and sexual relations between a man and woman and in my opinion since the man and woman have each other's oaths there is no restriction on them with regards to engaging in sexual activity (provided that the activity guarantees no children 2237)
In the proposition given by you there is mutuality. But there is no such thing even remotely in three worded sentence.
(provided that the activity guarantees no children 2237) There is no such thing in Ayah 2237. Once an activity takes place after marriage, the entire procedure for the act of seperation gets changed.
-
I was referring to intimate and sexual relations between a man and woman and in my opinion since the man and woman have each other's oaths there is no restriction on them with regards to engaging in sexual activity
If it were not the friendship that advanced into sexual act, then could it be other than a man hiring a woman for sex or a woman hiring a man to satisfy her sexual urge? Does prostitution mean anything else than this?
-
Yes but what about 423-25 and marrying the muhsinat and fatayat, given that they need to be MMA first before they are permissible for marriage.
I haven't exactly researched the terms but after the 112th time of starting this topic and stopping424 is talking about forbidden muhsinat from women except MMA + permissible others (except those mentioned) + procedure.
425 is talking about permissible muhsinat + believing from MMA + procedure
55 is talking about permissible muhsinat from believers + those given the scripture before + procedureThis leads one to think that the muhsinat is a particular term that exists both in MMA and outside. 55 doesn't mention making them MMA unless you take the same-ish procedure listed in 424-25/55 as one of the ways of making them MMA? It seems that they are already MMA if you can proceed with the procedure listed, which seems to be for marriage. It has been commonly translated as a category of women who are married but are under the protection of the believers thus MMA. Not sure I recall where the discussions were of issues with this, so if it has been discussed on the thread would like to read it.
425 is talking about fatayat + believing from MMA with the permission of their people + procedure
2433 is talking about fatayat from MMAThis leads one to think that fatayat is a subset of MMA and which mentions their people. muhsinat doesn't mention their people. This is thought to be because they are married women under the protection of the believers and thus don't need any permission from their people for x reasons. Whatever we put in x as the reasoning for why can further refine what this subset is. 2433 also mentions giving the writing to those of the MMA that seek it, if we see good in them and from the wealth/bounty that we have been graced with. Not sure what the writing is referring to. Probably not a cheque, yes. Something to do with why they are a particular subset of MMA? Is it something formal? When they seek to stop being MMA? Coming of age while being MMA? Not sure.
In 46 it says the money that is the orphan's right should not be spent excessively or hastily. Then it says whoever is rich should refrain. In my opinion, given the earlier part of the verse, the refrain can only refer to one thing The rich should never take from the orphan's money because they are rich and for them to take would fall under the earlier part of the verse which is to be excessive because they are rich. If they were not rich, then their taking of the orphan's money would not be in excess. So in my opnion, refrain here is clarified by the earlier part of the verse.
Yes, my point was that it's not something that cannot be done is all in the sense of impossible to do it. Which was leading from my earlier point of whether 'wealth' was a requirement for marriage.I don't think that only the MMA are dependent on wealth. Everyone seeking to marry is dependent on wealth. But also since it appears to me that all need to be MMA first before they are married then you this is sort of the same as saying that only the MMA are dependent on wealth for marriage. I think for the marriage to be successful and good, wealth is one necessary aspect. For independence to happen properly, wealth is needed for house, food, children and so on.
Sure, but is it a requirement or what should be done is was what I was questioning. Also whether it was specific for MMA or general. Thinking out loud, really. I usually involuntarily think of real terms for the application of a verse given what we are translating is as e.g. so must it not be done if two people are 18 (MMA? not MMA?) with no income/wealth and want to marry? do they have to wait or should they wait? stuff like that.That's why those who have not married (everyone, not just slaves) and don't have God's bounties should abstain...from marriage IMO. 2432 talks of slaves and their poorness and talks of God enriching them from his bounty regarding marriage. Thus 2433 must be referring to wealth and abstain from marrying rather than sex but not only with regards to slaves, but to all who are seeking to marry. 2432 specified slaves, then 2433 shifted this to all who seek marriage in my opnion.
I'm not sure I'd take it as slaves http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9600888.msg253237#msg253237Is there an issue you see if we take it from the perspective that it's referring to servants? Seems to make sense?
edits
-
In the proposition given by you there is mutuality. But there is no such thing even remotely in three worded sentence.
(provided that the activity guarantees no children 2237) There is no such thing in Ayah 2237. Once an activity takes place after marriage, the entire procedure for the act of seperation gets changed.
Good point, Mazhar. I agree. I assume you meant divorce though.
-
Good point, Mazhar. I agree. I assume you meant divorce though.
The word "divorce" though easy for comprehension but it denotes a complete seperation or split and in legal parlance signifies an ending of a marriage by an official decision in a court of law.
Therefore, it does not depict what is portrayed by Arabic Word "Talaq" which is a Verbal Noun depicting only an action and resultant state, not seperation or termination of marriage. It is a state known and pronounced to people, other than husband and wife, that the peculiar relationship of marriage is placed under suspension by the husband.
Therefore, there is no question of suspending that peculiar relationship when the husband has not yet established it once. Thereby, this does not involve any intervening period for its maturing resulting in instant alienation of wife terminating the bond of Nikah.
-
The word "divorce" though easy for comprehension but it denotes a complete seperation or split and in legal parlance signifies an ending of a marriage by an official decision in a court of law.
Therefore, it does not depict what is portrayed by Arabic Word "Talaq" which is a Verbal Noun depicting only an action and resultant state, not seperation or termination of marriage. It is a state known and pronounced to people, other than husband and wife, that the peculiar relationship of marriage is placed under suspension by the husband.
Therefore, there is no question of suspending that peculiar relationship when the husband has not yet established it once. Thereby, this does not involve any intervening period for its maturing resulting in instant alienation of wife terminating the bond of Nikah.
Interesting, I didn't think of it in quite that way. May I ask you what/how/when you consider the actual termination? What word would you say denotes the actual dissolution/termination of the nikah? Or is it assumed after the 'formalities'/procedure has been completed?
-
Salam Johan
there's only one doubt that currently popped out and i'm still trying to reconcile is the verse that talks about zawj and battha.
Why would this cause you doubt with regards to your view of marriage?
Salam Mazhar
In the proposition given by you there is mutuality. But there is no such thing even remotely in three worded sentence.
There is an agreement between two parties which in my opinion suffices as an oath with regards to the oath word in ma malekat aymunkum. X can ungaurd his private parts to his MMA and zawj. So what's there to stop x from unguarding his private parts to his girlfriend? What's there to stop him from having sex with her if the sex he has with her is guaranteed not to lead to a pregnancy?
If it were not the friendship that advanced into sexual act, then could it be other than a man hiring a woman for sex or a woman hiring a man to satisfy her sexual urge? Does prostitution mean anything else than this?
Prostitution is pay money have sex. This is different to both sides wanting sex.
Also friends deciding to have sex is different to a couple deciding to have sex after a 5 month relationship.
You might not like this question but what's wrong with prostitution? -
X can ungaurd his private parts to his MMA and zawj. So what's there to stop x from unguarding his private parts to his girlfriend? What's there to stop him from having sex with her if the sex he has with her is guaranteed not to lead to a pregnancy?
There is a difference between 'unguarding' private parts and having sex? It hasn't really suggested to me something having to do with sex. I thought it referred to someone having the permission to be around you for non sexual activities which might involve some/much/all nudity. Stuff like waxing, moroccan baths and so on. It might be trite but hey it's a real life example. A different subset of MMA which are allowed to be around you for such. MMA being an umbrella term as we know. If it involves sex, you'd need to find where the quran says you can have sex or implies actual sex and then see who the parties actually mentioned as being involved in that activity are. So far, it seems to be only spouses. Thus the MMA can only be involved in it for a purpose other than sex. If you're saying that just on the basis of a girlfriend being an MMA and that we can unguard our private parts thus we can have sex with them...I'd say no, because it doesn't say sex, it just says unguard private parts. If you unguard your private parts in front of a doctor e.g, would you also be allowed to have sex with them? Even if both of you wanted to?edit
-
Ok let me say a lot of what you have said made no sense to me at all.. maybe it's how you worded it.
You agreed
?whoever enters a marriage should not be masfuhan?
This means you should not enter a marriage e.g. you should not marry someone who has had sex outside of marriage.It?s almost like you?re saying sex inside of marriage is not permissible for pleasure? Seriously re-read what you wrote to me. How can?t sexual relation in marriage be purely for pleasure? In your theory the conclusion is sex in marriage should only be done to guarantee kids. Why is sexual acts only allowed for pleasure with MMA? Where did you get that theory from???
I don't think you can marry the muhsinat women untill they become those whom your oath possess (MMA) first. 423-24
I disagree with your translation. Muhsinat donate women who is against unchastity, so theoretically these could be 3 types of women, 1. A married women, 2 a chaste women, 3 a free women. the strongest meaning in my opinion and across most commentaries is that a muhsinat is a married women. see quranix for other translations
http//quranix.net
Obviously you do not marry a married women that is unlawful to you. but halal to you is a muhsinat if she is who your right hand posses i.e. your wife. She?s you?re mma because you have a legal binding together. Secondly it goes on to say beyond these are lawful for you to seek i.e. every other women.
just to clarify it starts from 423 stating who is haram for you, who is NOT PERMISSIBLE.
Also where did you get post marriage and pre-marriage theory? Made no sense to me.
you?ve asked me to address some questions but i?ll be honest with you, i have not thoroughly investigated these terms but i?ll answer you to what i do know. ultimately God knows best.
- i did not say mma is exclusively a marriage partner, context plays a part in understanding.
43 talks about marriage, mma is a category of women you can marry not women you must marry.
- what oath does a gf/bf have?
Here is a definition of oath
A solemn promise, often invoking a divine witness, regarding one's future action or behavior.
A sworn declaration that one will tell the truth, esp. in a court of law.Afaik gf/bf relations do not swear to a court, nor do a solemn promise with witnesses. There is no possession and afaik there is no legal binding. Today i can have a bf and tomorrow i can have a new one. There is no legal oath.
- i don?t have a concrete understanding of 235-6. However afaik Ma malakat ayimaanukum = Literally, those whom your right hands possess. The word AW can mean or, that is, namely, call it, in other words.
so two thoughts come into it
so a) your privates should be guarded except to your spouse that is/namely/in other words who you rightfully posses
b) your privates should be guarded except to your spouse or those whom your right hands possess.in conclusion i do not see concrete evidence that sex before marriage is permissible.
-
Interesting, I didn't think of it in quite that way. May I ask you what/how/when you consider the actual termination? What word would you say denotes the actual dissolution/termination of the nikah? Or is it assumed after the 'formalities'/procedure has been completed?
Termination of the prescribed period--three menses who experience periods-three months for women having reached menopause or uterous removed, or where there is doubt about periods say some abnormality. This is to be decided by the respective husband for his wife since other than she it is only he who has the prerogetive to know about this private affair of his wife.
-
In the proposition given by you there is mutuality. But there is no such thing even remotely in three worded sentence.
There is an agreement between two parties which in my opinion suffices as an oath with regards to the oath word in ma malekat aymunkum.
Salam,
Brother nowhere in the world or in any language a mutual agreement is called an oath. When one takes oath it is only to bind oneself not the other party, or an oath is taken to emhasize the certainity of that which is going to be stated and it is always by something else of the oath taker and the listener in front of him.
No stretching can yield what you are trying to get out of this word.
-
55 is talking about permissible muhsinat from believers + those given the scripture before + procedure
This leads one to think that the muhsinat is a particular term that exists both in MMA and outside. 55 doesn't mention making them MMA unless you take the same-ish procedure listed in 424-25/55 as one of the ways of making them MMA?
I really don't think 55 needs to mention making them MMA before you marry them when 424-25 has specified it already as the only way (imo).
Right after the prohibition of muhsinat in 424, 425 starts with "And whoever of you cannot afford to marry the independent female believers..." further implying that all muhsinat women are to be/become MMA before marriage. 425 appears to imply that it is better to marry the muhsinat which is consistent with 55 but that which occurs before 425 is a prohibition on non-MMA muhsinat. To say that 55 is a different type of muhsinat would in my opinion be inconsistent with the beginning of 425.The idea that there is a group of muhsinat that are different to the muhsinat in 424 such that you don't need to marry them first is also difficult because the term muhsinat is not like Ma malekat aymunkum which could literally, just by it's pure literal meaning encompass other categories aside from doctors, girlfriends , fiances and so on. To say that there are two different muhsinats would then lead us to ask how many possible muhsinat types could there be that have an attribute consistent with the root of the word that could coherently fit the idea that one type has to be MMAd first whilst the other can be married straight away.
Also is there really that big a difference between the implication of goodness in marrying the muhsinat in 425 and 55? When looking at MMA i think you also agreed that it could not mean one meaning based on the extent of difference of the verses in which it occurs. For example 235-6 contrasting it with how the prophet had MMAs as well as wives at the same time. But no such dramatic difference is there with regards to the usage of muhsinat in 425 and 55 also the term muhsinat does not appear to encompass much and as relevantly as ma malekat aymunkum does.
So I don't think that the muhsinat can be married without them becoming/being MMA first.
This leads one to think that fatayat is a subset of MMA and which mentions their people. muhsinat doesn't mention their people
I don't see it that way. I think that the fatayat and the muhsinat are their own categories that have the potential to become MMAs not in the same sense as a subset of the MMA. All in my opinion have the potential to become MMA. The question is of what type of MMA which in other words means what type of oath or what does the oath encompass?
Not sure I recall where the discussions were of issues with this, so if it has been discussed on the thread would like to read it.
None in this thread as far as I know.
so must it not be done if two people are 18 (MMA? not MMA?) with no income/wealth and want to marry? do they have to wait or should they wait?
I think it must be MMA based on my take on 424-25 and 55 and if they are both 18 but dependent, then they are both fatayat IMO. If they've moved out, then they are not fatayat IMO. I think Joseph is referred to as a fatayat when he was living in someone else's home as a dependent in 1230
"And some women in the city said "The wife of the governor is trying to seduce her fataha from himself; she is taken by love. We see her clearly misguided."
So I take fatayat to mean dependent as oppossed to youth in relation to age and marriage as a means to becoming independent (finally moving out and being self-sufficient with wife/husband)
Is there an issue you see if we take it from the perspective that it's referring to servants? Seems to make sense?
By this do you mean taking the MMA as servants or the fatayat, or someone else?
-
There is a difference between 'unguarding' private parts and having sex?
Yes I think so. BUT
If x unguards his parts but is told not to do y whilst ungaurding his parts then he should take that limitation into account and ungaurd his private parts whatever way he wants provided that he does not commit y. But if there is no limitation of y on x then he can unguard his private parts in any way he wants and thus have sex.
In other words If Quran doesn't restrict x from having sex, why should he not have sex? It's not about allowing to have sex. Its about not prohibiting sexMMA being an umbrella term as we know. If it involves sex, you'd need to find where the quran says you can have sex or implies actual sex and then see who the parties actually mentioned as being involved in that activity are.
I may be wrong but I think that in this case you've assumed that sex needs to be permitted and that if it is not permitted via a verse that says something like "you can have sex with MMAs" or implies such, then it is by default prohibited. I think this would then be a case of prohibiting without authority. Isn't Everything by default permitted not prohibted? We have to find prohibitions not permissions. Thus in this case, I would ask what are the implications with regards to sex not being permitted with the MMA?
I thought it referred to someone having the permission to be around you for non sexual activities which might involve some/much/all nudity
It would also cover that since nothing is there to restrict such activities from being covered.
If you unguard your private parts in front of a doctor e.g, would you also be allowed to have sex with them? Even if both of you wanted to?
That depends on many things such as is the doc married.
-
Salam,
Brother nowhere in the world or in any language a mutual agreement is called an oath. When one takes oath it is only to bind oneself not the other party, or an oath is taken to emhasize the certainity of that which is going to be stated and it is always by something else of the oath taker and the listener in front of him.
No stretching can yield what you are trying to get out of this word.
Peace Brother
How would you Quranically justify a Doctor assessing a patient's genitalia in light of 2431?
If I commit myself to a girl, promising faithfulness whilst I am with her, is that not an oath? -
Peace Brother
How would you Quranically justify a Doctor assessing a patient's genitalia in light of 2431?
If I commit myself to a girl, promising faithfulness whilst I am with her, is that not an oath?Would one oath of your promising faithfulness suffice for a girl to open herself to you?