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

Mazhar

How would you Quranically justify a Doctor assessing a patient's genitalia in light of 2431?

Do you accept the simple principle that impractibility does not allow enforcement of law?

Do you accept simple principle that in case of threat to life all prohibitions stand suspended with certain conditionalities?

Can a cancerous breast of a woman removed without she exposing her breast? Remember the instructions is that a woman will not expose her breast while waring clothes even to a woman other than her nearones. Here comes the law of impractibility.

nimnimak_11

Salam Sarah

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 think it's how i worded it. Hopefully i'l better word it now

You can have sex in marriage for pleasure
You can have sex with MMA for pleasure
You can't marry primarily and purely for having sex. That would be foolish and that is not the main reason for getting married as outline by 425.
You can start a relationship purely for sex. This is not foolish.

It's foolish in marriage because you choose and assess a marriage partner primarily based on other than their sexual ability.
It's not foolish in a non-married relationship because in that non-married relationship sex may be the primary thing your after. There is nothing wrong with this in a non-married relationship. But the approach of prioritising sex when assessing and choosing a marriage partner is foolish given the purpose that marriage ought to have as suggested by 425

So I choose my partner because I think she has attributes xyz which are essential for marriage. Once I marry her, sex for pleasure is obviously fine. But had i chosen my partner purely for sexual reasons, then this is wrong.

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

Would you still think that Muhsinat are married women despite the following verses
425 And whoever of you cannot afford to marry the muhsinat female believers, then....fatayat MMA
Notice the contrast of muhsinat with fatayat. What is there in the root of fatayat that pairs nicely muhsinat? I think dependence and independence. Not marriage.

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 muhsinat females from those who are believers, and the Muhsinat females from those who have been given the Book before you.

And how would you account for

423 Forbidden for you are...424 And the muhsinat from the women, except those maintained by your oaths
Can't marry the muhsinat unless they first become MMA or are already MMA.

You would probably benefit from seeing Savage_Carrot's reply to me and my reply to her regarding 423-24

43 talks about marriage, mma is a category of women you can marry not women you must marry

Apart from the muhsinat and the fatayat, are there any other categories of women? If not then IMO because of 424-25 whoever you marry must become MMA first.

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.

Imo they don't need to. Look at this

2224 And do not make God the subject of your casual oaths. Be pious and righteous and reconcile among the people; and God is Hearer, Knower.
2225 God will not call you to account for your casual oaths, but He will call you to account for what has entered your hearts. God is Forgiving, Compassionate.

In my opinion the Quran makes a distinction between casual oaths and serious oaths and I cannot see causal oaths the way you have suggested as legally binding. I see it in the sense that if say x's friend y needs to see x's genetalia for an assessment of a disease despite y not being a doctor, y does not need to sign a document or have a legally binding oath to do this. Now depending on the nature of sex (causual) or serious, the type of oath can range from causal to what enters someone's heart IMO.

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.

Given 423-25 55 2431, I strongly disagree that here the Quran intended to convey unguard your private parts to your wives who are technically your MMAs. IMO it is conveying you can ungaurd your parts to your wives and those whom your oaths possess.

in conclusion i do not see concrete evidence that sex before marriage is permissible.

Fair enough. But do you see concret evidence for sex before marriage being prohibited?
Should we prohibit that which is not prohibited?

nimnimak_11

Would one oath of your promising faithfulness suffice for a girl to open herself to you?

Depends on what you mean by open herself. Emotionally no she would have to trust me. She may be foolish by getting into something that might emotionally hurt her, reveal too much for example or just seriously put effort into building love and affection whereas i might not be as enthusiastic and just want her for sex. But that would be her responsibility if she gets hurt as would it be for me if I get hurt. So long as i have not deceived and have made my intentions sufficiently clear there is no wrong IMO.

Mazhar

Depends on what you mean by open herself. Emotionally no she would have to trust me. She may be foolish by getting into something that might emotionally hurt her, reveal too much for example or just seriously put effort into building love and affection whereas i might not be as enthusiastic and just want her for sex. But that would be her responsibility if she gets hurt as would it be for me if I get hurt. So long as i have not deceived and have made my intentions sufficiently clear there is no wrong IMO.

I wanted to draw your attention towards what you abbreviate MMA that the Subject of Verb in it is broken plural feminine while the Verb is also feminine and past tense.

nimnimak_11

Do you accept the simple principle that impractibility does not allow enforcement of law?

Do you accept simple principle that in case of threat to life all prohibitions stand suspended with certain conditionalities?

Can a cancerous breast of a woman removed without she exposing her breast? Remember the instructions is that a woman will not expose her breast while waring clothes even to a woman other than her nearones. Here comes the law of impractibility.

Not necessarily with the first. I have heard of cases where a patient must undergo an intrusive testing procedure to determine her symptoms which could be life threatening but refuse but i get your point.

To say that here that the Quran's command at 2431 should be suspeneded, is IMO to assume that the Quran has missed something where as IMO it has not missed anything via its oath principle. There is nothing in the Quran, as far as i know, that suggests that in life threatening situations you are allowed to ungaurd your private parts to get them healed. The only thing that allows this imo is the concept of MMA.

Consider this. In battle a soldier's private parts get infected (unlikely I know but bear with me) in order for him to survive, his parts must be exposed to the medic so that she can cure it. However before the battle this soldier has specified that "no matter what, i don't want anyone going anywhere near my private parts!" But the medic then thinks the hell with this, his life is on the line i'l go against his consent and wishes and force the cure. Is the medic justified?

nimnimak_11

I wanted to draw your attention towards what you abbreviate MMA that the Subject of Verb in it is broken plural feminine while the Verb is also feminine.

Which verse? I don't think it's always like that.

Mazhar

I am talking about MMA not verse.
Ma malakat aimanukum

Mazhar

Consider this. In battle a soldier's private parts get infected (unlikely I know but bear with me) in order for him to survive, his parts must be exposed to the medic so that she can cure it. However before the battle this soldier has specified that "no matter what, i don't want anyone going anywhere near my private parts!" But the medic then thinks the hell with this, his life is on the line i'l go against his consent and wishes and force the cure. Is the medic justified?

Could you find a single recognized surgeon the world over who would operate a person in senses or not in senses without the consent of the patient or his near ones if he is not in senses?

nimnimak_11

I am talking about MMA not verse.
Ma malakat aimanukum

What are you suggesting with regards to the MMA?

Mazhar

What are you suggesting with regards to the MMA?

Reply 543

nimnimak_11

Could you find a single recognized surgeon the world over who would operate a person in senses or not in senses without the consent of the patient or his near ones if he is not in senses?

Ok how would you Quranically say a doctor can assess another's genitals?

Is your suggestion that in the case of life and death 2431 should be suspended? and thus a doctor should be granted access?

nimnimak_11

I wanted to draw your attention towards what you abbreviate MMA that the Subject of Verb in it is broken plural feminine while the Verb is also feminine and past tense.

Is it your intention that I stop abbreviating to MMA? Or are you suggesting that the MMA are always females?

Mazhar

I am only suggesting that you give some time to this sentence and what it denotes literally. Thereafter, may be you revisit your first post and find it erroneous---"From these verses, it is clear that none should have access to the private parts except the following two categories Spouses (Azwaaj) and those who are committed to you by oaths (ma malakat aymanukum)"

It is Relative Pronoun, it needs a Relative Clause

It is Perfect Verb, feminine evident by Ta. It is a transitive verb. Here begins the Relative Clause.

Possessive Phrase--First Plural definite feminine noun is the Subject of preceding Verb.

is suffixed Possessive Pronoun, second person, plural, masculine.

The Object of Verb is elided for obvious reason, a pronoun that links to the Relative Pronoun.

nimnimak_11

I am only suggesting that you give some time to this sentence and what it denotes literally. Thereafter, may be you revisit your first post and find it erroneous---"From these verses, it is clear that none should have access to the private parts except the following two categories Spouses (Azwaaj) and those who are committed to you by oaths (ma malakat aymanukum)"

It is Relative Pronoun, it needs a Relative Clause

It is Perfect Verb, feminine evident by Ta. It is a transitive verb. Here begins the Relative Clause.

Possessive Phrase--First Plural definite feminine noun is the Subject of preceding Verb.

is suffixed Possessive Pronoun, second person, plural, masculine.

The Object of Verb is elided, a pronoun that links to the Relative Pronoun.

Ok thanks for pointing it out. The correction is

What their oaths possess.

I'm still curious, if you don't mind me asking

Quranically how would you say a doctor can assess another's genitals given 2431? Should we not uphold 2431 because it is ruled out via a life and death situation or is there some other indication in the Quran other than MMA with regards to allowing a doctor access?

nimnimak_11

Ok i see your point. Your suggesting that because it is oaths as opposed to oath, then it must be the case that there must be more than one oath. I don't think that is the case. I think because it is referring to the MMA in plural, then the word oath must also be pluralised not that you have to have more than one oath to/with someone before they are considered MMA.

Mazhar

Ok thanks for pointing it out. The correction is

What their oaths possess.

I'm still curious, if you don't mind me asking

Quranically how would you say a doctor can assess another's genitals given 2431? Should we not uphold 2431 because it is ruled out via a life and death situation or is there some other indication in the Quran other than MMA with regards to allowing a doctor access?

Typing mistake otherwise why a doctor be so interested in "assessing" genitals. How can a doctor have access to your genitalia unless you want to show it him for some advice to improve the ailment?

One word also seems posing problem for you and that is "" The word means such people who protect, guard, take care, preserve something from perishing, mindful, regardful, attentive. This is used for "" their genitalia. If they have developed a disease in their genitalia and they do not treat it but let it perish, would they in that case still be called "". Guarding the genitalia means avoiding ilicit use. It nowhere suggests that under any circumstances it should not be exposed in privacy for genuine reasons to a doctor.
During birth the vagina stands exposed to the nurse and female doctor attending the mother.

savage_carrot

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).
Are you saying that everyone permissible for us to marry would/has to be a MMA? Don't think so. And the procedure listed is not making them MMA, (they already are, hence called so) it's about marriage. It's talking about a specific situation.

Now, if someone had a view that a spouse can be an MMA as well as a spouse...firstly it doesn't mean they have to already be MMA or we have to make them MMA...they can be MMA by virtue of being married. Other than this, I haven't really examined this concept further. I suppose one would have to take the meaning of MMA to cover a spouse as well. Would that then extend to a girlfriend? Don't think so. Would that extend to a fiancee? Maybe. It still doesn't mean you can have sex just because it's MMA. You'd need to get married = procedure listed etc.

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.
Leaving aside 55, I don't understand? Are you saying that if we can't marry the muhsinat from the believers and are asked to look to an alternate category = fatayat from the MMA, the muhsinat must be made into a MMA before marriage??

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.
Reason I asked was to understand what is it that is giving the idea that muhsinat must be MMA first. Not sure why you mention implication of goodness? MMA as a term that encompasses different subsets yes, muhsinat? Not sure.

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?
I'd say anyone could have the potential to become a MMA but that is entirely different from saying they must be before we marry them. If not the same sense of the MMA, in what sense? Second, regardless of the oaths they are possessed by...sex is only with a spouse in all such verses dealing with permissible sex.

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)
Was just explaining my thought process at the time to clarify. Not sure if marriage is a means towards independence. Wealth is, however. I don't see an issue with dependent.

By this do you mean taking the MMA as servants or the fatayat, or someone else?
Just asking if you thought there was an issue with some of the MMA being servants like was brought up on the thread a lot earlier. The thread moves fast though, hard to read all the posts.

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 sex
Of course, that's why we look to where it seems restricted or even frowned upon. I didn't realise that you may be taking the verses about zina/fahisha etc in a different way. What do you think the first 10 or so verses of sura 24 is referring to for example? It seems to be about sex outside marriage as is commonly understood. Uncommonly we have it as 'public sex', but we also have the case of the husband accusing the wife where it might be taken as not 'public sex'. Are you suggesting that neither fahisha or zina have anything to do with sex outside marriage?

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?
No, I don't think that.

savage_carrot

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.

Yes, I see. Thanks Mazhar.

Mazhar

Ok i see your point. Your suggesting that because it is oaths as opposed to oath, then it must be the case that there must be more than one oath. I don't think that is the case. I think because it is referring to the MMA in plural, then the word oath must also be pluralised not that you have to have more than one oath to/with someone before they are considered MMA.

Have you ever heard someone saying that "he possessed oaths"?

nimnimak_11

Typing mistake otherwise why a doctor be so interested in "assessing" genitals. How can a doctor have access to your genitalia unless you want to show it him for some advice to improve the ailment?

One word also seems posing problem for you and that is "" The word means such people who protect, guard, take care, preserve something from perishing, mindful, regardful, attentive. This is used for "" their genitalia. If they have developed a disease in their genitalia and they do not treat it but let it perish, would they in that case still be called "". Guarding the genitalia means avoiding ilicit use. It nowhere suggests that under any circumstances it should not be exposed in privacy for genuine reasons to a doctor.
During birth the vagina stands exposed to the nurse and female doctor attending the mother.

What i'm saying is that 2431 makes it such that you cannot show your private parts to any other than your zawj or MMA. My argument is that if a doctor does not fall under the category of MMA, then via the Quran we have no permission to show a doctor our genitals even if it is a life and death situation.

Thus 2431 suggests that the parts should not be exposed. That is my point. Not that 235-6 implies doc's can't have access and thanks for correcting my spelling i did mean access.