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

Mazhar

The premises of this 58 pages discussion involving many many manhours is this

235 And they keep covered their private parts.
236 Except around their spouses (azwaaj), or those who are maintained by their oaths (ma malakat aymanukum), they are free from blame.
237 But whoever seeks anything beyond this, then these are the transgressors.

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) Thus SO FAR sex can only be done with those two categories of people.

Which word denotes oaths in the Arabic sentence mentioned in parentheses?

johan

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.

we can have a journal of periods if we see that as an important aspect of the faith
this journal is to be reported to an authoritative body concerning marriages and divorce especially in the n-periods prior and post a marriage/divorce event to protect the rights of the subjects involved

the state can lend a hand in helping to remind the women of her periods by providing an online calendar check
this can be cross-checked by a clearance from a certified physician

the test for the women is to report accurately the journal to the authority and/or her (ex)husband as per 2570

zina may be considered as a failure in accurately reporting the journal
this failure is what i meant by tampering

as for the figures involved i'll let the experts in actuarial sciences do the talking

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.

As I mentioned above, many expert hands can be involved in being the witness for whether the subjects were truthful about their state, especially for the women in regards to her pregnancy test
and all must be accounted for

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

well, never said that this will be a walk in the park..
consider this..
who would have thought that the earth was globe shaped when all they had knowledge of the earth was
madadnaha and dahaaha?
they all thought it was stretched out so it should have been a flat earth?
but when they finally when to the space they found out the truth..
and they changed the understanding of dahaaha to have an association to the ostrich egg or nest or something?
i think a little stretch of imagination doesn't hurt..
especially when reality is showing us that the advancement given by Allah SWT to the people of the west must have come with a reason
heck maybe their lifestyle is justifiable after all?

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

Oops sorry, i must have mistaken your name for an abbreviation you used in a different post

wallahua3lam

Noon_waalqalami

the state can lend a hand in helping to remind the women of her periods by providing an online calendar check

How bizarre a place.

johan

How bizarre a place.

salam noon,
embrace the new age world
nowadays mobile google calendar can track important events in your life, if you wanted to..
it's only a matter of time before everything is integrated to our life..
after all aren't our mind integrated to the essence of life..
what do we have to hide?

savage_carrot

we can have a journal of periods if we see that as an important aspect of the faith
this journal is to be reported to an authoritative body concerning marriages and divorce especially in the n-periods prior and post a marriage/divorce event to protect the rights of the subjects involved

the state can lend a hand in helping to remind the women of her periods by providing an online calendar check
this can be cross-checked by a clearance from a certified physician

the test for the women is to report accurately the journal to the authority and/or her (ex)husband as per 2570

zina may be considered as a failure in accurately reporting the journal
this failure is what i meant by tampering

as for the figures involved i'll let the experts in actuarial sciences do the talking
The state? Right, like I said, whether you fail to accurately report the Book of Period Days or not, it can still be done regardless without involving any book or writing whatsoever. Whether you fail to report it accurately to the state OR your ex husband gives you a clue as to why it can't be constrained to either and if it's not constrained to either, why even bring up the state or other parties. If it's the ex, then inaccurate reporting doesn't need to involve books or writing! The only reason you're insisting on this is because you insist the book in one verse is a Book of Period Days, when it's clear that for one it isn't and second that if it was, it would make little to no sense. There are no experts in actuarial sciences to talk about 'figures' in this strange scenario.

As I mentioned above, many expert hands can be involved in being the witness for whether the subjects were truthful about their state, especially for the women in regards to her pregnancy test
and all must be accounted for
Oh, you mean the 4 technicians that were witness to her pregnancy test in a hospital? 1 technician in 4 different hospitals? 4 clear blue sticks with another woman's piss? Her own? C'mon.

well, never said that this will be a walk in the park..
consider this..
who would have thought that the earth was globe shaped when all they had knowledge of the earth was
madadnaha and dahaaha?
they all thought it was stretched out so it should have been a flat earth?
but when they finally when to the space they found out the truth..
and they changed the understanding of dahaaha to have an association to the ostrich egg or nest or something?
i think a little stretch of imagination doesn't hurt..
especially when reality is showing us that the advancement given by Allah SWT to the people of the west must have come with a reason
heck maybe their lifestyle is justifiable after all?
Dude, this is a walk on Saturn's rings as far as I can see. The stretch of imagination must come with solid facts and associations.

Oops sorry, i must have mistaken your name for an abbreviation you used in a different post
Yeah that's what I thought. The only Tia I knew was in Wayne's World.

embrace the new age world
nowadays mobile google calendar can track important events in your life, if you wanted to..
it's only a matter of time before everything is integrated to our life..
after all aren't our mind integrated to the essence of life..
what do we have to hide?
And if you added wrong dates to google calendar, a Book of Period Days, or just said it to someone...it's pretty much the same thing without involving the 'state', writing, digital calendars and books.

nimnimak_11

Salam Johan

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..

I'm not sure on 41 because to me it appear to refer to the origins of humanity and its sort of difficult for me to see how it can be applied to anything other than the origins unless the cloned or artificially made humans, are distinct from humans to fit 41 which is possible but not likely IMO.

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..

I do think the yatama are orphans a cross-reference implies this but I have not looked at this in depth
http//corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=ytm#(422)

As for 43, we are told to marry or get an MMA if we can't be just to the orphans. I really don't think this would make sense from a financial perspective. I think the only thing that would make sense is with regards to having the ability and time to effectively look after the orphans. If one guardian doesn't have the time or effective parental capabilities of looking after a child, then they should get relevant support which would either be in the form of a wife(s) or MMA. I think this is more likely than the idea of the guardian lacking in the confidence to ensure that there won't be a mixing of assets and then solving this by marrying one or more wives or getting an MMA.

In the case of 43 I think it is primarily establishing that nikah is for the sake of family and childrearing. In general I do think that it is also importantly for inheritance but I think these two are closely tied together.

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

I don't see anything in 7189 to suggest the marriage is for sexually motivated actions. From 7189 I take that it is for the sake of residing and for the sake of childrearing as suggested by the pregnancy but I can see tranquillity if related to assurance as also being part of it and this could then related to the notion of legal stability.

nimnimak_11

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.

We might have to agree to disagree on this one. I think its primarily for the sake of independence which has the potential for yielding dependents (kids) on those who have become independent. When people get married, I think it's to start a life together within which starting a family is part of starting a life together. But I do agree that family is one of the most important reasons for getting married just not the most important. First is the lifelong commitment then possibly family life

I agree. That's why we need to look at the meaning and see if it allows an interpretation that can work everywhere.

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.

IMO the idea that the independent women are prohibited unless they are of those whom your oaths possess works fine and I haven't seen any stronger alternatives with regards to muhsin looking at the occurrences of the word in the Quran and it's root. It could be an issue with looking at the verse in the right way but I've not come across nor has any other ways occurred to me.

Why can't she be an MMA? You can't marry her but what's stopping her from being an MMA?

Your right. 2431 does not make it so that she cannot be an MMA. I shouldn't have posted that. There is nothing preventing her from being an MMA. However if she is to be an MMA within which there is an oath of sexual relations, then this is prohibited on the grounds that it is a clear fahisha. But if she was say, my doctor, then there would be no issue. Perhaps this is why they are not prohibited from being MMA.

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.

Yes but if the means to and end is inappropirate, then their marriage is technically impermissible. For example, they marry for the sex. This is inappropriate given 424-25 (to seek with their wealth....)

I still think zina is punishable primarily because of the trauma caused, which IMO is the highest possible with regards to unjust traumas to one's spouse, in general and potentially the worst force in ending a relationship. In the case of where the spouse is not bothered about being cheated on, then there would be no complaints or reports made. Also if a child is born outside of marriage then this is potentially evidence for zina and that would possibly be a worthy reason to punish.
A legitimate divorce can be really traumatic maybe more than zina but it is a fair thing IMO and the waiting period will be acted out to insure that no impulsive decision was made with regards to what was supposed to be a life-long commitment. I need to think about this more the point of punishment with regards to zina seems complicated.

nimnimak_11

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

Specifically in 235-6 I take zawj to mean spouse and I take Ma Malekat aymunkum to mean what their oaths possess.
That is what I think they mean at 236

nimnimak_11

The premises of this 58 pages discussion involving many many manhours is this

Which word denotes oaths in the Arabic sentence mentioned in parentheses?

I think that it is aymnuhum

savage_carrot

We might have to agree to disagree on this one. I think its primarily for the sake of independence which has the potential for yielding dependents (kids) on those who have become independent. When people get married, I think it's to start a life together within which starting a family is part of starting a life together. But I do agree that family is one of the most important reasons for getting married just not the most important. First is the lifelong commitment then possibly family life
I think that's a very individual point of view. So yes, we'd have to disagree.

IMO the idea that the independent women are prohibited unless they are of those whom your oaths possess works fine and I haven't seen any stronger alternatives with regards to muhsin looking at the occurrences of the word in the Quran and it's root. It could be an issue with looking at the verse in the right way but I've not come across nor has any other ways occurred to me.
One way of looking at it like Sarah mentioned, was to look at it from the perspective of MMA being a legal binding. Signifying that the spouses are permissible for sex because they are both MMA and spouses due to the legal binding involved. This would mean that the usage of MMA in the verse would be to refine our understanding of what it is rather than creating confusion when we separate the two when it comes to sex and people start thinking free sex world with just an 'oath' in place.

And prohibited for what? Marriage? So, the alternate is those eligible for... marriage? I don't see how the two are connected in terms of sex before marriage. If you'd take MMA you can marry as being separate from spouses and bring in the farooj verse and say hey look, 2 separate categories, why must they be separate? All the MMA talk about who we can marry in many verses and then suddenly, yeah here you go...don't need to buy the cow even? Don't think that's how it works. If that was how it worked, then what's wrong with the way things are happening right now? First off there is no childless sex mentioned that I can see, all you got going for that is the farooj verse that doesn't even address it directly or obliquely. So childless sex is essentially you thinking that's the best way to do it because otherwise it's obviously not on.

So, my question to you is...do you think people living a thousand years ago without condoms or IUD's or with even the rhythm method majorly avoided children in their trysts? Obviously not. It still doesn't happen even with ALL precautions in reach. Just because you think something is right for you and makes sense, is the best way to do it, with all the good intentions one can have...it holds no practical value given what we know of sex and people, history, all around you. Even less is thinking that the quran with it's injunctions on marriage, staying away from promiscuity/lewdness and child protection and firmness on social stability would encourage such. The book I read doesn't give me that idea in the least, trying to find evidence for an idea like that is even more of an effort, so much so that one has to end up relying on one verse to do with farooj in the context of spouses and mma's that could be mma's and spouses because they are married (one view). Nothing else even hints at such.

In light of this, I find the sex before marriage not being haram effort to be mostly a futile effort. My interest was in the MMA and what it could mean...and not say that it wasn't helpful. It definitely was in the sense that I do think now that it is a binding legal bond rather than anything else.

Yes but if the means to and end is inappropirate, then their marriage is technically impermissible. For example, they marry for the sex. This is inappropriate given 424-25 (to seek with their wealth....)
Yes let's read the verses. It's telling us more than don't just marry for sex. It's telling us to do it within morality and not in secret. How would a person do it ouside morality and/or in secret? For what purpose I ask you? Nothing whatsoever to do with sex at all I assume? Anything but that? Seeking and desiring chasteness must mean marry but not do it? p Reminds me of Sebastian in Dragon Age 2. What a cop out. I cried. Anyways, the point is...we can't even meet the women we want to marry in private unless we have something 'righteous' to discuss, I can bet you that isn't a euphemism.

I still think zina is punishable primarily because of the trauma caused, which IMO is the highest possible with regards to unjust traumas to one's spouse, in general and potentially the worst force in ending a relationship. In the case of where the spouse is not bothered about being cheated on, then there would be no complaints or reports made. Also if a child is born outside of marriage then this is potentially evidence for zina and that would possibly be a worthy reason to punish.
A legitimate divorce can be really traumatic maybe more than zina but it is a fair thing IMO and the waiting period will be acted out to insure that no impulsive decision was made with regards to what was supposed to be a life-long commitment. I need to think about this more the point of punishment with regards to zina seems complicated.
It doesn't say the witnesses need to be just the spouse. Yeah think about it, it isn't just for the married imo.

Mazhar

Specifically in 235-6 I take zawj to mean spouse and I take Ma Malekat aymunkum to mean what their oaths possess.
That is what I think they mean at 236

Actually you mean "what your oaths possess".

Now do you think one can use or think that "oaths" could possess something? For convenience

oath
(plural oaths )
noun

solemn promise a formal or legally binding pledge to do something such as tell the truth in a court of law, made formally and often naming God or a loved one as a witness
took a solemn oath of loyalty
words of promise the words said when making a formal pledge, especially when reciting a conventional formula such as that used in a court of law
swearword a swearword, especially one that uses the name of God or another sacred name in a disrespectful way

johan

The state? Right, like I said, whether you fail to accurately report the Book of Period Days or not, it can still be done regardless without involving any book or writing whatsoever. Whether you fail to report it accurately to the state OR your ex husband gives you a clue as to why it can't be constrained to either and if it's not constrained to either, why even bring up the state or other parties. If it's the ex, then inaccurate reporting doesn't need to involve books or writing! The only reason you're insisting on this is because you insist the book in one verse is a Book of Period Days, when it's clear that for one it isn't and second that if it was, it would make little to no sense.

Constrained? you mean by the shahadah constraint?
well i would probably even go so far as to say that for every mentioning of the term kataba on any kind of activity in the Quran there will always arise a "constraint" to book keep the activity with at least two male shahada or a one male and two female as per 2282
and even if you fail to fulfill the "constraint", Allah SWT has by default assigned 2 shaheedayn that will testify as per 5016-18, and then you will admit whatever was written in your book in judgement day as per 1714

There are no experts in actuarial sciences to talk about 'figures' in this strange scenario.

I was referring to your query on the football leg thingy,
you'll of course need to extend the current actuarial practices to the period thingy
it would be a bit complicated to cover here..

Oh, you mean the 4 technicians that were witness to her pregnancy test in a hospital? 1 technician in 4 different hospitals? 4 clear blue sticks with another woman's piss? Her own? C'mon.

where did you get the number 4 from?
you only need two..
and this is quite common practice in sunni muslim to have 2 witness in a marriage, which i think consistent with this line of reasoning
it's just that they've probably blurred the understanding of zina somewhere in time..
1 physician, 1 state representative
but this is just preferential..

Dude, this is a walk on Saturn's rings as far as I can see. The stretch of imagination must come with solid facts and associations.

Please define solid facts and associations..
How is it that what i have brought to the table is not considered solid facts and associations?

And if you added wrong dates to google calendar, a Book of Period Days, or just said it to someone...it's pretty much the same thing without involving the 'state', writing, digital calendars and books.

yeah, well good luck when you meet your Lord for inputting false information..
especially when you sworn to put the right information in the first place..

@nima
salam bro,
i'll try to get back to your reply tomorrow inshaallah

wallahua3lam

savage_carrot

Constrained? you mean by the shahadah constraint?
well i would probably even go so far as to say that for every mentioning of the term kataba on any kind of activity in the Quran there will always arise a "constraint" to book keep the activity with at least two male shahada or a one male and two female as per 2282
and even if you fail to fulfill the "constraint", Allah SWT has by default assigned 2 shaheedayn that will testify as per 5016-18, and then you will admit whatever was written in your book in judgement day as per 1714
Did you even understand what I posted? Look at the verses for zina 242-10...you know the ones that actually have the word in them and are referring to the procedure? As in a solid association...? Please tell me that you really aren't just taking witnesses and procedures willy nilly and applying them to zina just because that also involves witnesses and a procedure?

I was referring to your query on the football leg thingy,
you'll of course need to extend the current actuarial practices to the period thingy
it would be a bit complicated to cover here..
Never mind.

where did you get the number 4 from?
you only need two..
and this is quite common practice in sunni muslim to have 2 witness in a marriage, which i think consistent with this line of reasoning
it's just that they've probably blurred the understanding of zina somewhere in time..
1 physician, 1 state representative
but this is just preferential..
Got it from the verses? The verses that have to do with zina directly? I assumed you were referring to the zina verses, my bad. What do sunni muslims have to do with anything!

Please define solid facts and associations..
How is it that what i have brought to the table is not considered solid facts and associations?
above and below.

yeah, well good luck when you meet your Lord for inputting false information..
especially when you sworn to put the right information in the first place..
False witnessing is bad. We are told not to do that in many many places, to be good witnesses and so on and so forth. It is understood. The problem is that you are saying that zina means inputting false information in a book of period days or whatever book and that people will get lashed for this. With NO direct association whatsoever or even understanding what the word means. By taking words like witnesses from across the book, ignoring the context and/or procedures, putting them all together and saying it's the same thing because all have witnesses. Not to mention that false witnesses of the type that accuse someone of zina and don't bring the evidence have their own punishment in 244. So now we have the subject dealing with false witness and those that bear false witness for the false witness. Also not to mention that in cases where we don't record the transaction (2282), we have no writing and no book! And it's dealing with another subject!

nimnimak_11

Actually you mean "what your oaths possess".

According to corpus, at 236 it appears to be their, rather than your. I'm not sure who is right but I doubt this is significant.

Now do you think one can use or think that "oaths" could possess something?

Yes. If I give an oath/oaths to someone, then they have a claim upon me. I have pledged my self to them via the oath I have made to them.

My question remains

If we do not consider those who are possessed via oaths as possibly being doctors, then how would it be permissible in light of the Quran to allow them access to our private parts?

hawk99

236 Except around their spouses (azwaaj), or those who are maintained by their oaths (ma malakat
could someone explained what is meant by "maintained by their oaths" O0

Mazhar

According to corpus, at 236 it appears to be their, rather than your. I'm not sure who is right but I doubt this is significant.

Yes. If I give an oath/oaths to someone, then they have a claim upon me. I have pledged my self to them via the oath I have made to them.

My question remains

If we do not consider those who are possessed via oaths as possibly being doctors, then how would it be permissible in light of the Quran to allow them access to our private parts?

In 236 pronoun is "Hum" meaning they-third person; masculine; plural, where it is Kum this is for second person plural masculine.

What you think through "oath", it is not there in the sentence. Again take care as to who is subject and who is object in your understanding of things "via oaths". What is the singular of "aymunkum"?

Noon_waalqalami

In 236 pronoun is "Hum" meaning they-third person; masculine; plural, where it is Kum this is for second person plural masculine.

What you think through "oath", it is not there in the sentence. Again take care as to who is subject and who is object in your understanding of things "via oaths". What is the singular of "aymunkum"?

Peace Mazhar everyone,

Needing to see a doctor or being strip searched is not in ones control or in their right hands/means

231 thus succeed the believers
232 the ones who they in their prayers humble
233 and the ones who they about the nonsense averse/turning away
234 and the ones who they lilzzakati of purification works doers
235 and the ones who they of their private parts guardians
236 only on their spouses or what possess their right hands/means indeed they not blameworthy

nimnimak_11

One way of looking at it like Sarah mentioned, was to look at it from the perspective of MMA being a legal binding. Signifying that the spouses are permissible for sex because they are both MMA and spouses due to the legal binding involved. This would mean that the usage of MMA in the verse would be to refine our understanding of what it is

That would be to understand that an MMA must be bound by law. What's the basis for this understanding?
My main issue with understanding 235-6 as just clarifying that zawj is actually MMA (thus legally binding) are certain verses. For example

43 And if you fear that you cannot be just to the orphans, then you may marry those who are agreeable to you of the women two, and three, and four. But if you fear you will not be fair, then only one, or whom you maintain by your oaths. This is best that you do not face financial hardship.

236 Except around their mates, or those who are maintained by their oaths, they are free from blame.

In 43 and 236 the same word aw is placed between zawj and MMA. Can we really view the MMA in these verse as being the same as zawj or that the usage of MMA here is to essentially point out that a zawj is MMA thus legally bound? IMO there is a clear distinction and separation between the two and the confusion arises when this distinction is not made

rather than creating confusion when we separate the two when it comes to sex and people start thinking free sex world with just an 'oath' in place.

Yes but that is to assume that a free sex world with just an oath in place is wrong by default o why?! IMO before we accept this belief, let's sit down and think about why it's wrong (but this is not for this forum) so lets sit down and see where in the Quran this is implied as wrong or prohibited and my point is that IMO if we approach the scripture without notions that sex ought to be exclusive to marriage, we won't find indications unless we pick specific meanings from zina or fahisha.

All the MMA talk about who we can marry in many verses and then suddenly, yeah here you go...don't need to buy the cow even?

No need to buy a cow. Buying a condom might suffice D. There is like a 2% chance that it won't -\

all you got going for that is the farooj verse that doesn't even address it directly or obliquely.

Ok my point of view is that the burden of proof is not on me since i'm trying to to show that there is no prohibition. Essentailly im trying to show there is no proof. Those who believe in the prohibition the burden of proof is on them in the sense that they need to show verses that convey this prohibition. What you've got on your side are the concepts of zina and fahisha which can be interpreted or understood in a certain way as to make sex exclusive to marriage thereby narrowing MMAs to un-sexual un-guardings of the private parts which I think is less likely.

do you think people living a thousand years ago without condoms or IUD's or with even the rhythm method majorly avoided children in their trysts? Obviously not. It still doesn't happen even with ALL precautions in reach.

No. for them going forth and multiplying might have been a good thing but now it's a stupid thing so you have to prevent the multiplying...not the going forth.

IMO the pill lowers the odds of pregnancy sufficiently provided that the individual taking it is willing to risk side effects however what guarantees no children is to for example exclude penetration. Sexual acts can occur with 0% chance of pregnancy and my argument is that if there is sufficient pre-caution, then one has not transgressed.

it holds no practical value

Provided that those who go forth do so in a righteous manner, I think that it does.

Even less is thinking that the quran with it's injunctions on marriage, staying away from promiscuity/lewdness and child protection and firmness on social stability would encourage such.

A married relationship encompasses more than a sexual relationship and requires more guidelines. The idea of childless sex IMO completely deals with the waiting period, divorce, child protection AND removes confusion on 235-6 423-25 2431-33.
If there is a better understanding that deals with these things, then fine but I haven't come across any and I sincerely think that this is the best option at the moment.

The book I read doesn't give me that idea in the least, trying to find evidence for an idea like that is even more of an effort, so much so that one has to end up relying on one verse to do with farooj in the context of spouses and mma's that could be mma's and spouses because they are married (one view). Nothing else even hints at such.

I'm not relying on one verse. I'm acknowledging a restriction and arguing that there is no further restriction.

If x engages in sex with someone whom he has an oath from and that this sexual activity has a 0% chance of leading to a child has he done wrong via either reason or Quran?

Yes let's read the verses. It's telling us more than don't just marry for sex. It's telling us to do it within morality and not in secret.

It's emphasising that marriage is not for sex not that it's for sex and more IMO.

we can't even meet the women we want to marry in private unless we have something 'righteous' to discuss, I can bet you that isn't a euphemism.

Your talking about 2235 I think
And there is no sin upon you if you hint khhitbati to the women, or you keep it between yourselves. God knows that you will satadhkurnahunna (mention/remind/remember) them , but do not make an appointment/a promise them secretly, unless you have something righteous to say. And do not decide on the marriage contract until the book interim is reached.

It's just saying don't meet in secret unless you have something righteous to say. If I said to my mum, mum i'm hanging out with my girlfriend today is that a secret meet up?

If I did everything that I could to meet up with no one knowing, then I must have a good reason and what could be a better reason than to discuss or plan something righteous or kind?

nimnimak_11

What is the singular of "aymunkum"?

l-aymna
Am I correct?

nimnimak_11

236 Except around their spouses (azwaaj), or those who are maintained by their oaths (ma malakat
could someone explained what is meant by "maintained by their oaths" O0

http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604063.0