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

nimnimak_11

Are you saying that everyone permissible for us to marry would/has to be a MMA?

If the muhsinat and the fatayat are the only available categories of women, then yes.

Don't think so
Why not? What is there to imply otherwise?

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.

Yes as are the fatayat and thus they are permissible for marriage. Which is why I suggested that if they are not, then they must become MMA because of the muhsinat restriction in 424 which then goes on to directly say in 425 that those who can't afford to marry the muhsinat...implying that the muhsinat are the plan a or at the very least a good option for marriage, even thought in 424 it prohibited the non-MMA muhsinat. Isn't this signifcant in pointing to the need of whichever muhsinat is being married (muhsinat) to either already be MMA or to become MMA?

Do we really need a description of how someone becomes an MMA or what an MMA is when the phrase is so literal?

Would that then extend to a girlfriend? Don't think so. Would that extend to a fiancee?

Why would you allow say a doctor to be an MMA perhaps even a fiance, but not a girlfriend? When the phrase is those whom your oaths possess can easily entail all these categories including spouse. On what grounds then would you narrow it's scope?

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??

This is the begining of 424 "And the muhsinat from the women, except those maintained by your oaths " .
This is the begining of 425 "And whoever of you cannot afford to marry the muhsinat..." So it's not that MMA is spouse or already married in this case. In 425 Marriage to Muhsinat appears to be recommended at the start of 425 despite prohibiting them at 424. My conclusion is that they are not prohibitted. They just have to be MMA as do the fatayat before they are permissible for marriage. What other possible interpretation can you make other than that to marry the muhsinat or the fatayat, they must be/become MMA?

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 agree.

I'd say anyone could have the potential to become a MMA

completely agreed.

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.

I would have no issue with that. There are oaths involved between the servant and the master so technically it can be MMA.

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?

That's where I misunderstood you.

Yes my understanding of fahisha is literally lewdness. Lewdness can encompass many things ranging from flirting when already married or perving on someone your not supposed to, to inappropriate actions such as molesting those that should not be and so on. Zina is someone who has married that then goes on to have sex outside this marriage, this in my opinion is committing zina.

Necrophilia or bestiality are also possibly good examples of zina because the dead and the animal can never be the subject of oaths thus they can never be MMA or zawj. This also applies to children, and so on.

That's why i was wondering where did you get the restriction from. I didn't know it was from 241-10.

nimnimak_11

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

No but when i simplified the notion of x's girlfriend to its foundations, i came to the girlfriend is x's via oath which in turn reminded me of MMA.

Mazhar

No but when i simplified the notion of x's girlfriend to its foundations, i came to the girlfriend is x's via oath which in turn reminded me of MMA.

It is time for mental check up. Thanks.

savage_carrot

If the muhsinat and the fatayat are the only available categories of women, then yes.

Why not? What is there to imply otherwise?
If these are the only categories of women not allowed for us to marry why would it say all beyond this in 425? If someone is taking that to mean all beyond are only 2 categories, then here is where the meaning of the words muhsinat and fatayat and even MMA become important. Is there a rendering that can bring down ALL permissible categories to just 2? Not sure, let's see

a)Muhsinat Married/Protected/Chaste/Independent/etc

or

b)Fatayat Young woman/slave/dependent/free/etc

Let's refine the meanings of the words, given what we know from the verses.

424 forbidden are all chaste women except from the MMA, forbidden are all protected women except from the MMA, forbidden are all independent women except from the MMA, forbidden are all married women except from the MMA.

425 those unable to marry chaste believing women, those unable to marry protected believing women, those unable to marry independent believing women, those unable to marry married believing women

425 then marry fatayat from MMA.

What is a general summation of the MMA? 3028 is saying that they are lacking in means some way to those that provide/maintain/protect/etc them.

Before getting into the meaning of fatayat, and given what we can discern from this ^ is that would all chaste women be lacking in means some way? protected women? independent women? married women? Sure some can be but not sure how protected would fit there. Also, it gives categories and then says beyond this all permissible if you follow the procedure etc. Just an observation but the categories in 423 are all related to relationships of some kind or another...it starts off 424 with a single category. This to me suggests that it is different from the rest in 423.

Next, 'making them MMA' before marrying them would mean you'd take a chaste woman for example lacking in maintenance, resources and protection in some way and tell her I'll maintain, provide and protect you via marriage, I maketh an oath/s thusly to such effect and so on and so forth. Until you follow the procedure listed in the verses for a nikah and then put it into effect, they aren't your MMA's. If you just maintain, provide and protect, they are your MMA's...just not MMA's that you married just because you married them.

Yes as are the fatayat and thus they are permissible for marriage. Which is why I suggested that if they are not, then they must become MMA because of the muhsinat restriction in 424 which then goes on to directly say in 425 that those who can't afford to marry the muhsinat...implying that the muhsinat are the plan a or at the very least a good option for marriage, even thought in 424 it prohibited the non-MMA muhsinat. Isn't this signifcant in pointing to the need of whichever muhsinat is being married (muhsinat) to either already be MMA or to become MMA?

It prohibited the non-MMA muhsinat for a reason which is why other muhsinat are allowed. We have to translate the word now in either case because if we don't, it won't clarify further. Which word do you think signifies which muhsinat can be allowed if they are generally forbidden? This doesn't mean that they have to be MMA.

Like you yourself said, we look for restrictions and here we see an exception to a generally forbidden category. It would be very odd to have only muhsinat and fatayat from your MMA's refer to all permissible women when the categories are clearly demarcated from the women and it says permissible all beyond this if procedures are followed. What about fatayat not from your MMA's? Do these not exist? Obviously they must exist. It doesn't say fatayat not from your MMA's are prohibited, thus these can't be the only categories. Does the fatayat not from your MMA's become muhsinat? How?

Do we really need a description of how someone becomes an MMA or what an MMA is when the phrase is so literal?
Yes, yes we do. There is only so much muhsinat and fatayat and MMA we can do, until there comes a point that we need to understand what these are for further clarification.

Why would you allow say a doctor to be an MMA perhaps even a fiance, but not a girlfriend? When the phrase is those whom your oaths possess can easily entail all these categories including spouse. On what grounds then would you narrow it's scope?
That's why we would need to understand the scope of MMA. Perhaps, it has to do with a function that is specified which would exclude personal relationships and include other ones.

This is the begining of 424 "And the muhsinat from the women, except those maintained by your oaths " .
This is the begining of 425 "And whoever of you cannot afford to marry the muhsinat..." So it's not that MMA is spouse or already married in this case. In 425 Marriage to Muhsinat appears to be recommended at the start of 425 despite prohibiting them at 424. My conclusion is that they are not prohibitted. They just have to be MMA as do the fatayat before they are permissible for marriage. What other possible interpretation can you make other than that to marry the muhsinat or the fatayat, they must be/become MMA?
Like I said, maybe it is referring to a specific situation rather than all situations. Maybe it has to do with the reason he can't marry them, and he has to pick or is picking from a mma pool. Maybe a muhsinat mma (x mma) is recommended and the substitute is fatayat mma (y mma). You'd have to find the restriction for y (not mma) then.

That's where I misunderstood you.

Yes my understanding of fahisha is literally lewdness. Lewdness can encompass many things ranging from flirting when already married or perving on someone your not supposed to, to inappropriate actions such as molesting those that should not be and so on. Zina is someone who has married that then goes on to have sex outside this marriage, this in my opinion is committing zina.

Necrophilia or bestiality are also possibly good examples of zina because the dead and the animal can never be the subject of oaths thus they can never be MMA or zawj. This also applies to children, and so on.

That's why i was wondering where did you get the restriction from. I didn't know it was from 241-10.
In my view right now, zina seems to be 'public sex' between married/non married for which there is a punishment...and also refers to it in the case of a spouse accusing the other in which case not sure if it's strictly public. But regardless of the specifics, I hold the view that sex outside marriage is prohibited based on where I see there are restrictions. Lots of discussion on this and fahisha so don't really want to get into it.

johan

Salam Johan

Why would this cause you doubt with regards to your view of marriage?

Salam nimnimak,
http//corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=4&verse=1

since the verse does not talk about walada/born but bathatha/disperse, and rather than children(awlaad) but rijaal(men) and nisaa'(women) and there are many of them/kathara; what are the likelihood of the role that marriage plays when human cloning technology is made public to the world?
what if Adam AS and 7awa AS did not give birth to humans but rather cloned the second generation of humans???

if that would be the case, maybe that's why sex has not much meaning except for pleasure and should not be disputed??

wallahua3lam,

nimnimak_11

It is time for mental check up. Thanks.

Ok then Mazhar good luck to you with that.

Just in case you've missed it, you have yet to reply to
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.

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?

Good luck to you with this also.
Thanks.

nimnimak_11

If these are the only categories of women not allowed for us to marry why would it say all beyond this in 425?

The permitted for you beyond this occurs in 424. The fatayat are not mentioned untill 425. This is directly after the permitted for you are beyond this. Permitted for us beyond the muhsinat are the fatayat where in which if we can't marry the muhsinat MMA, we marry the fatayat MMA. If it was beyond the fatayat and muhsinat, should it not have said this at the end of 425 rather than 424? Or even mention it both at the end of 424 and 425?

Which is why i think it's suspect that in 424 it would come and prohibit the muhsinat that are not of MMA. Then proceed to say that permitted to you is what is beyond this. Then start 425 with if you can't marry the muhsinat (without specifying that they need to be MMA even though it did this explicitly in 424) then proceed to explicitly say that fatayat that are MMA are for marriage. There is nothing more beyond this otherwise it would have mentioned it in 425 after the fatayat IMO.

This is why I can't conclude anything other than that you cannot marry the fatayat or muhsinat (the only available Quranic categories) unless they are/become MMA.

Is there a rendering that can bring down ALL permissible categories to just 2?

Given the contrast between fatayat and muhsinat that occurs in 424-25 and the fact that permission is needed in the case of the fatayat but no muhsinat, i think that dependent/independent is the best option we can take.

a)Muhsinat Married/Protected/Chaste/Independent/etc

or

b)Fatayat Young woman/slave/dependent/free/etc

In my opinion, the only two that pair, is dependent and independent keeping in mind the permission needed for the fatayat. I really can't see a better pairing at the moment.

What is a general summation of the MMA? 3028 is saying that they are lacking in means some way to those that provide/maintain/protect/etc them.

3028 is highly open to interpretation where as 424-25 is IMO not. For example in 3028 the MMA may refer to servants that are MMA rather than finaces, zawj or girlfriends that are MMA. Or it may be drawing attention to the idea that you need an MMA that should partner you in your provision and that once you find such this is a good MMA to marry...or that you shouldn't share your provisions with the MMA such that you are both equal there in. There are also other interpretations like don't share your provisions with your servants such that you become equal.

Does it outweigh the evidence of 424-25 with regards to the MMAness needed before marriage?

is that would all chaste women be lacking in means some way? protected women? independent women? married women?

Some may, some may not. Which is why i am inclined to think of MMA here as servant perhaps or butler. Or perhaps it is referring to the poorer muhsinat and fatayat where in which without the man's providence and sharing, they cannot become equal in the provisions therein which may be a bad thing or good thing depending on how that verse is interpreted. But none of this IMO must necessarily lead to the following which you suggested

Next, 'making them MMA' before marrying them would mean you'd take a chaste woman for example lacking in maintenance, resources and protection in some way and tell her I'll maintain, provide and protect you via marriage,

It prohibited the non-MMA muhsinat for a reason which is why other muhsinat are allowed.

If your basing that on 55, i'd have to disagree. Look at how 424 prohibits then says permitted to you is beyond this then says the fatayat MMA then not say permitted to you is beyond this. Essentially 425 has clarified what is permitted to us beyond the MMA muhsiant in 424. Leaving us with nothing more beyond this IMO.

It would be very odd to have only muhsinat and fatayat from your MMA's refer to all permissible women when the categories are clearly demarcated from the women and it says permissible all beyond this if procedures are followed. What about fatayat not from your MMA's? Do these not exist?

The none MMA fatayat exist but they are not permissible for marriage. My reasoning for this is that 424 says what is beyond this then straight after says if you can't marry the muhsinat, marry the fatayat MMA. Then it does not say permitted to you is what is beyond this after pointing out what was beyond the muhsinat. Why would it say that in 424 then proceed to mention what is beyond this, but then not mention what is beyond this after mentioning the fatayat MMA?

IMO the fatayat become muhsin when they get independence either from themselves moving out to support themselves or moving in with their partners. Either way mushinat or fatayat, they need to be MMA before they are permissible for marriage IMO.

That's why we would need to understand the scope of MMA. Perhaps, it has to do with a function that is specified which would exclude personal relationships and include other ones.

I completely agree that we need to understand the scope of MMA. I currently think it's too narrow based on 235-6, 423-25.

In my view right now, zina seems to be 'public sex' between married/non married for which there is a punishment...and also refers to it in the case of a spouse accusing the other in which case not sure if it's strictly public. But regardless of the specifics, I hold the view that sex outside marriage is prohibited based on where I see there are restrictions. Lots of discussion on this and fahisha so don't really want to get into it.

I personally cannot see an unmarried couple engaging in sex being punishable by humiliating them if that is the purpose of lashing or just hurting them if that is the purpose of lashing where as if someone has married someone (making such a lifelong commitment) then goes on to cheat, then this is surely punishable since the damage done to the other is mentally so high. I don't understand why places such as the UK don't punish those who commit adultery. Equally I don't understand why some places would punish an unmarried couple engaging in sex or even a prostitution in the same way they would punish a Married individual who has cheated on their partner.

I am ok with not discussing zina and fahisha but will engage in it if engaged. I will just say this the only possible way of suggesting that the Quran prohibits sex (the sort that leads to kids) before marriage, is to point to fahisha and zina and interpret them in a certain way. Given reason regarding who deserves to be lashed, 235-6 and 424-25, I think the traditional views of zina and fahisha are wrong.

I hold the view that sex outside marriage is prohibited based on where I see there are restrictions

If you see restrictions or implications of restrictions other than zina and fahisha, and have time, then please share.

nimnimak_11

Salam nimnimak,
http//corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=4&verse=1

since the verse does not talk about walada/born but bathatha/disperse, and rather than children(awlaad) but rijaal(men) and nisaa'(women) and there are many of them/kathara; what are the likelihood of the role that marriage plays when human cloning technology is made public to the world?
what if Adam AS and 7awa AS did not give birth to humans but rather cloned the second generation of humans???

if that would be the case, maybe that's why sex has not much meaning except for pleasure and should not be disputed??

wallahua3lam,

Salam Johan

I think its a difficult verse to understand and a controversial and difficult topic (cloning) added to it. If cloning becomes possible and it becomes legal, then i'd think it would be a one party thing. As in the person who is getting cloned chooses and no one else I guess. In the case of pregnancy, it's a two party thing.

Perhaps there needs to be some sort of safety or security that ensures both the parents of the child come to be aware of their child. Hence one important need for marriage is the conditions a marriage would bring about for the child along with documented inheritance as you've suggested. But this need not stretch back all the way to the begining IMO. So even though we are all from this one nafs, we don't need to go all the way back to that and associate inheritance to back then.

In the case of future cloning, perhaps there won't be any. If there was, it would be difficult to apply the Quran to it since it does not cover the self that is dead and what it gets. So my guess is that successful cloning would never take place. If it does, then Quranists need to deal with what happens in the case of inheritance then.

Mazhar

Ok then Mazhar good luck to you with that.

Just in case you've missed it, you have yet to reply to
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.

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?

Good luck to you with this also.
Thanks.

2431 is not on this subject.

You actually mean 236 with replica 7030 where "" is your main problem. This was clarified

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.

nimnimak_11

2431 is not on this subject.

You actually mean 236 with replica 7030 where "" is your main problem. This was clarified

Peace

235 And they guard their private parts.
236 Except from their mates, or those who are maintained by their oaths, they are free from blame.

If we accept the understanding you have suggested, I think it would yield something like the following

And they guard their private parts by taking it to the doctors for a check-up when it is an emergency, and doing x y z except from their....

So from their zawj or MMA, they should not guard their private parts? From their zawj or MMA they should not be bothered about the health condition of their private parts? I strongly doubt it. The only thing that guard appears to be referring to is usage and exposure. Any other understanding of guard wouldn't (IMO) make sense with regards 236

So which of the two following understandings are better in your honest opinion?

a) 235-6 They guard (look after the well being) of their private parts, except from their zawj or MMA
b) They guard (don't expose, don't use) their private parts, except from their zawj or MMA

Or do you have another understanding c?

savage_carrot

The permitted for you beyond this occurs in 424. The fatayat are not mentioned untill 425. This is directly after the permitted for you are beyond this. Permitted for us beyond the muhsinat are the fatayat where in which if we can't marry the muhsinat MMA, we marry the fatayat MMA. If it was beyond the fatayat and muhsinat, should it not have said this at the end of 425 rather than 424? Or even mention it both at the end of 424 and 425?

he permitted for you beyond this occurs in 424. The fatayat are not mentioned untill 425. This is directly after the permitted for you are beyond this. Permitted for us beyond the muhsinat are the fatayat where in which if we can't marry the muhsinat MMA, we marry the fatayat MMA. If it was beyond the fatayat and muhsinat, should it not have said this at the end of 425 rather than 424? Or even mention it both at the end of 424 and 425?

Which is why i think it's suspect that in 424 it would come and prohibit the muhsinat that are not of MMA. Then proceed to say that permitted to you is what is beyond this. Then start 425 with if you can't marry the muhsinat (without specifying that they need to be MMA even though it did this explicitly in 424) then proceed to explicitly say that fatayat that are MMA are for marriage. There is nothing more beyond this otherwise it would have mentioned it in 425 after the fatayat IMO.

This is why I can't conclude anything other than that you cannot marry the fatayat or muhsinat (the only available Quranic categories) unless they are/become MMA.

Was a number typo. If we are talking 424 as a continuation of the previous then permissible all beyond this is in regards to the prohibitions. You'd take nisa as the pool of all available and look for restrictions/exceptions. It appears that nisa has been constrained to 2 types not just based on restrictions/exceptions but also on what's mentioned as permissible categories? I looked up the word which is used as 'behind' in other places. Is it referring to something already made permissable other than what it's talking about now...what could it mean in that verse? Who knows. It's beyond me at this point to go digging after every word along when there are all these generalities abounding regarding concepts etc. It needs to be put together with a solid and specific understanding about the words and the concepts which I'm not seeing at this time.

Given the contrast between fatayat and muhsinat that occurs in 424-25 and the fact that permission is needed in the case of the fatayat but no muhsinat, i think that dependent/independent is the best option we can take.
I'm not sure.

3028 is highly open to interpretation where as 424-25 is IMO not. For example in 3028 the MMA may refer to servants that are MMA rather than finaces, zawj or girlfriends that are MMA. Or it may be drawing attention to the idea that you need an MMA that should partner you in your provision and that once you find such this is a good MMA to marry...or that you shouldn't share your provisions with the MMA such that you are both equal there in. There are also other interpretations like don't share your provisions with your servants such that you become equal.

Does it outweigh the evidence of 424-25 with regards to the MMAness needed before marriage?
But we need to look at other aspects or this is getting into a tedious go around even if it is something you consider open to interpretation. No, I don't think a girlfriend or a partner in our provisions for marriage is what the verse is saying in fact I'd say that's very confusing. The common translations of Asad etc work fine and make sense. And are we reduced to making almost everyone a MMA? What about a son? Or daughter? Why not them as well? They're dependents too? Just like a wife is apparently. As well as anyone we'd like. If one promises to take care of them and provide for them etc etc etc. It just seems as if we make it too general it loses whatever reason it's being used for specifically in specific verses. We'd need to have it specific regarding whatever it is.

I brought it up because if we find what else it can represent, then maybe these categories and the meanings of muhsinat/fatayat would also be clearer. That maybe the MMA could have many categories within it but they all have a common factor beyond 'oaths'...i.e. some commonality to do with lack of resources or whatever. And/or specific MMA oaths are different from other ones. That version of the MMA, the under protection and living with us and all that implies separate from the obvious wife/kids etc so on, does seem like a likely category seeing as how one day we can promise a beggar a meal and he'd be an MMA too. Something different from 'everyone can be an MMA with an oath involved'.

ome may, some may not. Which is why i am inclined to think of MMA here as servant perhaps or butler. Or perhaps it is referring to the poorer muhsinat and fatayat where in which without the man's providence and sharing, they cannot become equal in the provisions therein which may be a bad thing or good thing depending on how that verse is interpreted. But none of this IMO must necessarily lead to the following which you suggested
Not sure. At this point I'm willing to look at a more restrained and solidly specific version of what MMA means rather than all and sundry tbh. Yeah, that was just an example of a way it could go down.

If your basing that on 55, i'd have to disagree. Look at how 424 prohibits then says permitted to you is beyond this then says the fatayat MMA then not say permitted to you is beyond this. Essentially 425 has clarified what is permitted to us beyond the MMA muhsiant in 424. Leaving us with nothing more beyond this IMO.
No not basing it on 55. I was figuring out why it says muhsinat believers instead of muhsinat believers from the MMA if only the muhsinat from the MMA are permissible. Rest above.

Anyways in summary, my best shot at anything resembling understanding the MMA has now been reduced to figuring out what MMA definitely cannot be instead of it being included in almost every relationship.

I personally cannot see an unmarried couple engaging in sex being punishable by humiliating them if that is the purpose of lashing or just hurting them if that is the purpose of lashing where as if someone has married someone (making such a lifelong commitment) then goes on to cheat, then this is surely punishable since the damage done to the other is mentally so high. I don't understand why places such as the UK don't punish those who commit adultery. Equally I don't understand why some places would punish an unmarried couple engaging in sex or even a prostitution in the same way they would punish a Married individual who has cheated on their partner.

I am ok with not discussing zina and fahisha but will engage in it if engaged. I will just say this the only possible way of suggesting that the Quran prohibits sex (the sort that leads to kids) before marriage, is to point to fahisha and zina and interpret them in a certain way. Given reason regarding who deserves to be lashed, 235-6 and 424-25, I think the traditional views of zina and fahisha are wrong.
There are other ways to betray a spouse without sex outside marriage which have a high mental impact as well, why sex then? Sex outside marriage (regardless of married/unmarried) when in the public sphere to protect against the negative social impact of such seems more likely as are most legal punishments. In the case of the spouse accusing the other...not sure. I haven't researched it extensively but whichever way one cuts it, yet to see a solid understanding of zina to do without sex outside marriage. Not looking to engage however, just my views and given what I've read about it.

If you see restrictions or implications of restrictions other than zina and fahisha, and have time, then please share.
If you've read past threads on the subject, people have brought up implications in other places if it's understood to be about sex. can't remember exactly offhand. If it's not sex, no idea. I'm sure someone must've brought it up somewhere and maybe I've even read it but drawing a blank right now.

Mazhar

So which of the two following understandings are better in your honest opinion?

a) 235-6 They guard (look after the well being) of their private parts, except from their zawj or MMA
b) They guard (don't expose, don't use) their private parts, except from their zawj or MMA

MMA is no word the world over. It is an abbreviation coined on this forum. You translate it in the above to make home the point what you wish to say.

johan

Salam Johan

In the case of future cloning, perhaps there won't be any. If there was, it would be difficult to apply the Quran to it since it does not cover the self that is dead and what it gets. So my guess is that successful cloning would never take place. If it does, then Quranists need to deal with what happens in the case of inheritance then.

Salam Nima,
perhaps what should be more of our concern as the recipient of the child/man be it by means of cloning through natural gestation or artificial womb if ever possible (i would bet it would be as how Adam AS was more likely to have existed from), more over natural birth is how to care for it. I think be it a single party (Maryam AS) or multi-party is not the main issue as far as 2233 is concerned, since both at the end of the day can negotiate the terms of nurturing and delegate the nurturing of the child/man.

For me that if any of the above genesis is possible then it's permitted by Allah SWT as nothing happens except by His permission.

I think i would tend to the opinion that the Quran doesn't cover explicitly the artificial womb genesis, but talks implicitly about the role the zawj/pair would play in being the recipient as per 41
and i would assume that the word banu/ibn would derive from the notion of bana which is more related to building/constructing/replicating and in this case is that of humans.
maybe by the time the artificial womb is possible nabi 3eesa AS will be among us to explain further, but if he doesn't maybe there is no need for further clarifications..

it's interesting how 42 talks about the yatama (orphaned?) right after 41
and on 43 talks about how to deal with the problem of mixing the assets of yatama with ones asset and how it might jeopardize the sense of justice of the one who is taking care of the yatama and it's solution through nikaa7 institution can then be safer for the one to proceed with the mixing of assets..
it only solidifies the intent of the nikaa7 institution as being asset oriented rather than sexually motivated activity..

some might use the verse 7189 as a basis for zawj/nikaa7 as sexually motivated activity but i'd argue that the usage of sakana has a wider sense as per verse 2248 which gives the notion of assurance in general
in the case of 2248 it it's of military related security
but in the case of 7189 it's an inheritance security, i.e. whatever is inside the womb of the wife is the husband's heir..
interestingly, AFAIK the Quran doesn't define any terms related to the state of being a "bastard".. and hence it's insignificance

There are other ways to betray a spouse without sex outside marriage which have a high mental impact as well, why sex then? Sex outside marriage (regardless of married/unmarried) when in the public sphere to protect against the negative social impact of such seems more likely as are most legal punishments. In the case of the spouse accusing the other...not sure. I haven't researched it extensively but whichever way one cuts it, yet to see a solid understanding of zina to do without sex outside marriage. Not looking to engage however, just my views and given what I've read about it.

salam Tia,
just skimmed through some of your posts and noticed this part..
i agree that there are other ways to betray a spouse other than sexual motives and that it might very much be related to the term zina..
is there any reason that hinders the term zina to mean a financial embezzlement of some sort against the spouse? a con artist using the nikaa7 institution to meets his ends..?

imo the keeping of the book (kataba) when nikaa7 is commenced 2235,4127 has a lot to do with the book mentioned in the verse 2282

at the end of the day it all boils down to the assets and the recipients when it comes to inheritance..
and i have a hunch that zina 2568 somehow has something to do with the disruption of some sort to the book keeping..

wallahua3lam,

savage_carrot

salam Tia,
just skimmed through some of your posts and noticed this part..
i agree that there are other ways to betray a spouse other than sexual motives and that it might very much be related to the term zina..
is there any reason that hinders the term zina to mean a financial embezzlement of some sort against the spouse? a con artist using the nikaa7 institution to meets his ends..?

imo the keeping of the book (kataba) when nikaa7 is commenced 2235,4127 has a lot to do with the book mentioned in the verse 2282

at the end of the day it all boils down to the assets and the recipients when it comes to inheritance..
and i have a hunch that zina 2568 somehow has something to do with the disruption of some sort to the book keeping..

wallahua3lam,
Maybe you should check the meaning/root etc and see it it fits everywhere. I don't think it does, then again people can be inventive. 2235 is saying don't proceed with the nikah etc until the terms specified in the quran/book are complete referring to widows etc in the previous verse. 4127 is they want a ruling from the Allah, then is given a ruling concerning them in the book which is quite obviously the quran because it proceeds to recite the ruling. What book is mentioned in 2282? It's talking about a procedure to do with how we record our debts etc. 5106 is about the will/inheritance procedure. 2568 as a disruption to 'book keeping'? What book keeping is this? A witnessed writing of debts/inheritance? Do we seriously have zina connected to witnessed contracts and wills through random associations based on all have procedures and witnesses? There may thus be writing involved in all too? This type of reasoning is counter productive imo.

peace

johan

Maybe you should check the meaning/root etc and see it it fits everywhere. I don't think it does, then again people can be inventive. 2235 is saying don't proceed with the nikah etc until the terms specified in the quran/book are complete referring to widows etc in the previous verse. 4127 is they want a ruling from the Allah, then is given a ruling concerning them in the book which is quite obviously the quran because it proceeds to recite the ruling. What book is mentioned in 2282? It's talking about a procedure to do with how we record our debts etc. 5106 is about the will/inheritance procedure. 2568 as a disruption to 'book keeping'? What book keeping is this? A witnessed writing of debts/inheritance? Do we seriously have zina connected to witnessed contracts and wills through random associations based on all have procedures and witnesses? There may thus be writing involved in all too? This type of reasoning is counter productive imo.

peace

Salam Tia,

Many times in the Qur'an Allah SWT uses terms in a loosely coupled ways to hint a consistent analogy or similitude, links, relationship and associations between verses, apart from the obvious verse proximity..
in the 2235 it may indicate to mean "term" but imo we should not strike out all possibilities of associations..
so that even the "term" that is referring to menstruation periods can be book kept,
nowadays football stars legs are insured, what about book keeping the menstruation period and put that into account and credit that?

if you go to the verses after zina is mentioned 2570 you will notice that there is a mentioning of yashhadoon azzoura which imo can be associated to the shahada mentioned in 2282 in the context of what's inside her womb that can/cannot be credited to her (ex)husbands account..

i hope i answered all the questions..

wallahua3lam

savage_carrot

Salam Tia,

Many times in the Qur'an Allah SWT uses terms in a loosely coupled ways to hint a consistent analogy or similitude, links, relationship and associations between verses, apart from the obvious verse proximity..
in the 2235 it may indicate to mean "term" but imo we should not strike out all possibilities of associations..
so that even the "term" that is referring to menstruation periods can be book kept,
nowadays football stars legs are insured, what about book keeping the menstruation period and put that into account and credit that?

if you go to the verses after zina is mentioned 2570 you will notice that there is a mentioning of yashhadoon azzoura which imo can be associated to the shahada mentioned in 2282 in the context of what's inside her womb that can/cannot be credited to her (ex)husbands account..

i hope i answered all the questions..

wallahua3lam

What exactly are you saying here?

'Terms' of a woman's period is kept in a book and someone out there is tampering with it?...It's obvious that no matter how we figure out the dates of the period, whether they are kept in a book or from other dates and working forwards/backwards...the verse is clearly referring to the required waiting period given in the book, i.e. the quran in the previous verse and the other relevant verses in the book giving the specified intervals. There is no Book of Period (or just) Days required anyways. Nothing is stopping them from showing chicken blood or refraining from and tampering with the 'evidence' without ever touching any book or writing even.

Nowadays apart from a footballer's legs...wait, um insurance? You mean put the Book of Period Days into an account and credit that? What, how? unless this is a proverbial something...I'm entirely not sure what you're talking about here. Admit it, you thought I'd be distracted by the footballer's legs, I'll admit my weakness if you do.

Okay, 2572 Those who do not bear false witness, and if they pass by vain talk they pass by with dignity.

and 2282 O you who believe, if you borrow for a future period, then you shall record it. And let a scribe of justice record it for you; and let not the scribe refuse to record as God has taught him. Let him record and let the person who is borrowing dictate to him, and let him be aware of God, and let him not reduce from it anything. If the one who is borrowing is immature or weak or he cannot dictate himself, then let his guardian dictate with justice; and bring two witnesses from amongst your men; if there are not two men, then a man and two women from whom you will accept their testimony, so that if one of them becomes occupied, then the one can reminds the other. And let the witnesses not refuse to come if they are called. And do not fail to record it no matter how small or large until its maturity. That is more just with God and better for the testimony, and better that you do not have doubts; except if it is a trade to be done on the spot between you, then there is no sin upon you if you do not record it. And have evidence if you trade. No scribe shall be harmed nor any witness; for if you do so then it is vileness on your part, and be aware of God and God teaches you and God is aware of all things.

This is what I'm boggled by. Why would you take witnesses in a different context and procedure from different verses with different contexts and procedures and then say but they are all connected to zina, which isn't even connected to any of the different contexts or procedures directly or obliquely. What's wrong with a straightforward understanding using the meaning etc rather than convoluted conundrums that for one aren't even directly related and one has to squint really hard to even understand what the logic is, or if there's any beyond the above.

Not trying to dissuade you or anything, just want a solid association is all.

And not sure if you realise, but my name isn't Tia... ;D

nimnimak_11

If we are talking 424 as a continuation of the previous then permissible all beyond this is in regards to the prohibitions

425 And whoever of you cannot afford to marry (yanikah) the independent female believers, then from those maintained by your oaths of the believing young women. And God is more aware of your faith, some of you to each other. You shall marry (fa-inkihunna) them with the permission of their parents and give them their dowries in kindness; to be independent (mu'antin) , not for illicit sex or taking lovers. When they become independent (u'inna), then any of them who come with lewdness shall have half of what is the punishment for those independent. This is for those who are concerned about deviating from among you. But if you are patient it is better for you, and God is Forgiver, Merciful.

I really can't see how any of the occurrences of muhsin in 424-25 could possibly be referring to married. All signs point to independent. One important reason for marriage is independence.
Also if we take the muhsinat in 424 to mean married it would mean that we can marry the married women so long as are oaths possess them which I think is unreasonable.

The question is what is left? Given that non-mma muhsinat are prohibited in 424, then the only permissible marriage is to the MMA fatayat It's either this or

The muhsinat mentioned in 424 is irrelevant to the muhsinat mentioned in 425. This could then mean that in 424 its referring to married women whilst in 425 its referring to independent/fortified etc. women. I doubt this for reasons i explained at the start of this post. Could you have a muhsinat married category, that is within the muhsinat independent category? not likely IMO
There are other categories of nisa that are neither of the muhsinat or the fatayat. This IMO is impossible. Every category must fall under one of these two categories 3) None MMA Fatayat are also permitted

I don't think it's either 1 or 2 as I see more evidence counter to this.

I looked up the word which is used as 'behind' in other places. Is it referring to something already made permissable other than what it's talking about now

I don't think we can take the word to mean behind in this case. I can't see how it would make sense. Similiarly the same word occurs in 7031 and i strongly doubt that it could mean anything other than beyond/after.

And are we reduced to making almost everyone a MMA? What about a son? Or daughter? Why not them as well? They're dependents too? Just like a wife is apparently

We'd need to have it specific regarding whatever it is.

It does not need to be specific or narrow as then that would cause contradictions. Everyone can be MMA so long as they are not of the restrictions with regards to family relations Those listed in 2431 and 423 cannot be MMA. For example my daughter may be a fatayat but she can't be an MMA to me. Or my daughter may be a muhsinat but she can't be an MMA to me either.

Also I don't see all MMAs as dependents, only the fatayat ones. Once they are independent, they can no longer be fatayat because one cannot be fatayat whilst being muhsinat at the same time. But they can be muhsinat or fatayat whilst being MMA at the same time.

No not basing it on 55. I was figuring out why it says muhsinat believers instead of muhsinat believers from the MMA if only the muhsinat from the MMA are permissible.

Would it need to? when in 424 it has already specified that only the muhsinat are prohibited except the MMA of them?
The question here IMO is why in in 423-24 did it not say prohibited to you are.....and the muhsinat AND the fatayat except those MMA.

In my opinion this is either an emphasis on the importance of marrying a muhsinat over a fatayat or simply because you can marry a fatayat without them necessarily being MMA but you cannot to this in the case of the muhsinat.

Here is the debate that has run through my head
q) The fayatat cannot be married unless they are MMA.
p) The fatayat can be married without them being MMA.
q) Why does it specify at 425 fatayat that are MMA rather than just fatayat?
p) equally why are the fatayat not part of the list in 423-24 whilst the muhsinat are?
q) because in 424 it says permitted to you is beyond this then goes on to say if you can't do x (marry muhsinat (in which you can only marry them if they are MMA)) then do y (marry fayata MMA) which implies there is nothing beyond y.
p) This does not necessarily need to be the case. Perhaps it was suggesting it was a better option to marry fatayat MMA then just fatayat that are not MMA.
q) agreed.

Anyways in summary, my best shot at anything resembling understanding the MMA has now been reduced to figuring out what MMA definitely cannot be instead of it being included in almost every relationship.

That's sort of my approach and I've come to a double negation The MMA cannot not be a finace, girlfriend. Because a) There is not evidence that suggests otherwise b) There is implication that suggests that this needs to be the case.

There are other ways to betray a spouse without sex outside marriage which have a high mental impact as well, why sex then? Sex outside marriage (regardless of married/unmarried) when in the public sphere to protect against the negative social impact of such seems more likely as are most legal punishments.

There are no negative relevant social impacts involved when the odds of pregnancy are 0%
How more relevantly could you betray a spouse (By relevantly i mean something that you could do only to a spouse) by coming near zina (extra-marital relation without sex) or committing zina?

If you've read past threads on the subject, people have brought up implications in other places if it's understood to be about sex

I have read past discussions and articles on MMA before i started the thread.
I'm fairly confident that this thread has pretty much seen all possible verses that imply sex is exclusive to marriage and have been discussed and included in the summary thread. The main ones that you and I have not discussed were

The whole of 2221-241 but what stands out from these verses are the following
2237 2228-2233 2235

nimnimak_11

MMA is no word the world over. It is an abbreviation coined on this forum. You translate it in the above to make home the point what you wish to say.

Not sure I understand you. Could you clarify
You translate it in the above to make home the point what you wish to say.

Perhaps you want me to stop the abbreviation? If that is the case then here is a non-abbreviated version of my post to you

So from their zawj or Ma Malekat aymunkum, they should not guard their private parts? From their zawj or Ma Malekat Aymunkum they should not be bothered about the health condition of their private parts? I strongly doubt it. The only thing that guard appears to be referring to is usage and exposure. Any other understanding of guard wouldn't (IMO) make sense with regards to 236

So which of the two following understandings are better in your honest opinion?

a) 235-6 They guard (look after the well being) of their private parts, except from their zawj or ma malekat aymunkum
b) They guard (don't expose, don't use) their private parts, except from their zawj or ma malekat aymunkum

Or do you have another understanding?

Mazhar

So which of the two following understandings are better in your honest opinion?

a) 235-6 They guard (look after the well being) of their private parts, except from their zawj or ma malekat aymunkum
b) They guard (don't expose, don't use) their private parts, except from their zawj or ma malekat aymunkum
Or do you have another understanding?

I could not find red words in any dictionary of English. Please tell what they mean?

savage_carrot

I really can't see how any of the occurrences of muhsin in 424-25 could possibly be referring to married. All signs point to independent. One important reason for marriage is independence.
Marriage is not for independence. It may be in certain areas due to circumstances and so on, but the primary reason for marriage is to start a family followed by others.

Also if we take the muhsinat in 424 to mean married it would mean that we can marry the married women so long as are oaths possess them which I think is unreasonable.
I agree. That's why we need to look at the meaning and see if it allows an interpretation that can work everywhere.

The question is what is left? Given that non-mma muhsinat are prohibited in 424, then the only permissible marriage is to the MMA fatayat It's either this or

The muhsinat mentioned in 424 is irrelevant to the muhsinat mentioned in 425. This could then mean that in 424 its referring to married women whilst in 425 its referring to independent/fortified etc. women. I doubt this for reasons i explained at the start of this post. Could you have a muhsinat married category, that is within the muhsinat independent category? not likely IMO
There are other categories of nisa that are neither of the muhsinat or the fatayat. This IMO is impossible. Every category must fall under one of these two categories 3) None MMA Fatayat are also permitted

I don't think it's either 1 or 2 as I see more evidence counter to this.
First I'd try to find a working meaning for muhsinat. If the issue is from 424, then we either need to find the right meaning or the right way of looking at the verse.

I don't think we can take the word to mean behind in this case. I can't see how it would make sense. Similiarly the same word occurs in 7031 and i strongly doubt that it could mean anything other than beyond/after.
Haven't really researched it yet.

It does not need to be specific or narrow as then that would cause contradictions. Everyone can be MMA so long as they are not of the restrictions with regards to family relations Those listed in 2431 and 423 cannot be MMA. For example my daughter may be a fatayat but she can't be an MMA to me. Or my daughter may be a muhsinat but she can't be an MMA to me either.

Also I don't see all MMAs as dependents, only the fatayat ones. Once they are independent, they can no longer be fatayat because one cannot be fatayat whilst being muhsinat at the same time. But they can be muhsinat or fatayat whilst being MMA at the same time.
Why can't she be an MMA? You can't marry her but what's stopping her from being an MMA?

Would it need to? when in 424 it has already specified that only the muhsinat are prohibited except the MMA of them?
The question here IMO is why in in 423-24 did it not say prohibited to you are.....and the muhsinat AND the fatayat except those MMA.

In my opinion this is either an emphasis on the importance of marrying a muhsinat over a fatayat or simply because you can marry a fatayat without them necessarily being MMA but you cannot to this in the case of the muhsinat.

I'm questioning the way we are looking at it right now. Whatever it is, has to be solid so that would mean more looking.

That's sort of my approach and I've come to a double negation The MMA cannot not be a finace, girlfriend. Because a) There is not evidence that suggests otherwise b) There is implication that suggests that this needs to be the case.
I'm of the opinion that the MMA may be a specific category because of 436, 3028 (may be others; haven't examined). In my experience, specific terms are always used for specific reasons in the quran. So at this point in time, that's where I stand.

There are no negative relevant social impacts involved when the odds of pregnancy are 0%
How more relevantly could you betray a spouse (By relevantly i mean something that you could do only to a spouse) by coming near zina (extra-marital relation without sex) or committing zina?
I was referring to 'public sex' being a negative relevant social impact. Bringing in zina and fahisha (the way I understand them) into the social sphere. I can imagine many different scenarios of betrayal with a high mental impact which was the statement.

For many, marriage is just a means to an end. Some don't even like their spouses much, yet stay together for the family. There are many places where women are content with getting the support which was their primary concern and letting the husband have his fun/mistress/wives on the side. Less for men apparently, must be the testosterone. Then again, I knew a couple of pimps who pimped out their wives regularly (don't ask me where I knew them from). Just because x amount of people feel something in varying degrees should be no reason to have a public punishment handed out on the basis of varying degrees of mental trauma in an individual, alone.

Besides, a divorce could cause the same amount of mental trauma if one of them doesn't want to continue with the marriage for reasons besides cheating. One marriage ended because the guy just was fed up with the wife, his married life so on and he just wanted out. The woman was devastated, was like wish he had a woman on the side because that would've been easier than this. One just gets on with life really, instead of looking for divine fire to burn a cheater or a mind changer.