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

[nimnimak_11]

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

My understanding is that Ma Malekat aymunkum are those whom your oaths possess not right hands as that would not make as much sense IMO. The point I was making to Mazhar was that unless for example doctors ARE the Ma Malekat Aymunkum, then we are prohibited from showing doctors or allowing doctors to operate on our private parts. Current debate is that those whom our oaths possess can be more than one category so long as there are oaths in place. My suggestion is that an unmarried partner would also be a Ma Malekat Aymunkum which IMO fits well with 235-6 2431-33 423-25. The implication of this is that we can have sex with them but there is an implication of a limitation by 2228-237 which implies that the sexual acts should not lead to children.

[Mazhar]

What is the singular of "aymunkum"?

l-aymna
Am I correct?

When you write an Arabic noun singularly without other text, never place "a" at the end. Nouns in Arabic are nominative in default state with ending "u".

Google search and find if this singular word denoting "oath" exists in some text as subject of a verb indicated by "u" at the end since subjects are always nominative.

[savage_carrot]

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
43 is understood by many in various ways. Seeing as how you've spent a lot of time on this topic, you must know the different views regarding it? Is there one superior view that excludes any other in your opinion? If so, which is it?

Yes but that is to assume that a free sex world with just an oath in place is wrong by default 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.
So, have you definitely excluded zina as having anything to do with sex whatsoever? If so, how and why. We already know why a free sex world is wrong by default, we don't need the quran for that.

No need to buy a cow. Buying a condom might suffice ). There is like a 2% chance that it won't -
Right, tell that to the over populated countries.

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.
Wouldn't you have to prove zina and fahisha, two concepts peppered across the quran, are not what they apparently are? If everything can be interpreted or understood a certain way, then yes, we can make our individual stands and stay there. The point is, is there any understanding which is overwhelmingly in favour of one or the other view, and if so...which is it? To me, sex outside marriage is not convincing and saying just change the meanings around and look at it from another pov, and it will take on a 180 degree difference is hard to accept especially since there isn't any hard evidence yet from that quarter.

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.
Going forth and multiplying without regard to a firm social structure in place for the consequences of such multiplication i.e. marriage is foolhardy. You're saying sex resulting in no children is what is not a transgression. Where is this defined? Even if we for one moment take MMA's as girlfriends...where is the no child sex clause? Or is that a personal opinion based on it has to be or else the consequences are tragic? Do we marry said gf if she has a kid? Just take care of them with the kid but no marriage? In a marriage one has sex responsibly within a firm/secure social structure in which the consequences are dealt with in legal/social/psychological/etc whatever terms. In comparison, take the honour concept of having the right intentions and the right precautions and it's all good...anyone who's experienced life and seen the signs can tell you...it's not pretty.

Provided that those who go forth do so in a righteous manner, I think that it does.
Right, why even have laws in place then. Just be excellent to each other.

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.
Okay, couple gets married, the wife has no uterus, no kids ever. Why do they need to get married if they too can change their minds like the non married couple having childless sex? Is it only for having a legal backing to the relationship? For what reason? For state benefits etc? Wouldn't that be as big a transgression as marrying for sex, even childless sex? Is marriage just a romantic statement of commitment then? Or is it only for people who want to start families? Where is the no child thing coming in from anyways? Can you point me towards a verse?

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?
So the only time he transgresses is if uses all precautions for example and the condom bursts. Or if the pills don't work. Good luck to those that had neither condoms or pills. Have sex but don't get children. It's like drink but don't get drunk. Ok.

It's emphasising that marriage is not for sex not that it's for sex and more IMO.
For only kids then?

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?
The only reason one would meet up in secret is to discuss a plan or something righteous? Ok.

[Maha]

Sister Savage carrot. Ma malakat aymanakum is in past, (Malakat is past), right ?

Peace

[johan]

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?
Never mind.

As I said before, the loosely coupling of terms used by the Quran gives us hints; the choice of terms used in the Quran to promote a concept defines the essence of the concept.
Chapter 4 mentions the word tijarah as per 429 in the context of marriage since we could view that the general tone of the talk for the whole chapter 4 is about the relationship between men and women, the verse 425 talks about marriage and 435 is also in the context of marriages so i should be safe to assume that what's in between is also about marriage
this coincides with the fact that tijarah is also mentioned in 2282
and this tijaarah is followed by the bay3ah which requires witness
I think this solidify my argument?

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.

I think the verse on the mu79anaat that you referred in 244&6 is in the context of 424 as below

tabtaghoo(want from each other) biamwaalikum (from your wealth) mu79ineena (protecting, i.e. financially) ghoir musafi7eena (not excessively)
and this is in accord with the verse about tijaarah 429 as below

do not eat each others wealth through bathil (unjustly) but through mutual understanding

What do sunni muslims have to do with anything!

well, you certainly don't have to take their word for it.. P
it was just fyi

above and below.
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!

well i think with the proofs put forward above, it seems that the context has been put to financial perspective, no?
to me associating the term zina with mounting seems funny..
it sounded more of like excessive zayn(goodness) then mounting..
beside that, bigha is more meaningful quranically to depict sexual penetration urge linked activity since it has more to do with generating a child than anthing else as per verse 1920

How can I possibly have a child when no man has touched me and i have not bgahiyya(wanted/urging it)

wallahua3lam

[nimnimak_11]

43 is understood by many in various ways. Seeing as how you've spent a lot of time on this topic, you must know the different views regarding it? Is there one superior view that excludes any other in your opinion? If so, which is it?

I have spent much time on this topic and I have an opinion on that but I will not make it so that I have gotten into an in depth discussion on that particular verse or that I know many different views regarding it. My view on that verse is that should it be the case that one can't look after the orphans justly, then they should marry as that would then result in better care. If they can't handle more than one marriage (which they most likely won't) then they should marry one or get an MMA.

So, have you definitely excluded zina as having anything to do with sex whatsoever? If so, how and why. , we don't need the quran for that.

No I haven't excluded sex from zina. Just the idea that an unmarried couple engaging in sex = zina.

We already know why a free sex world is wrong by default

I sincerely don't, provided that it is not transgressed and there is caution. A good thing should not be restricted just because some may transgress. Could you really fault a couple engaging before getting married? If yes, how?

Wouldn't you have to prove zina and fahisha, two concepts peppered across the quran, are not what they apparently are?

are not what they apparently are? bit of an assumption isn't it? I take fahisha to mean lewdness which need not include fornication as many on this forum might argue and i take zina as adultry where in which one engages in sex besides their legal partner and my proof of why I would form them over the traditional interpretations is this

1. If you take zina as encompassing a couple engaging in sex without a marriage certificate this entails that their act is intrinsically so wrong that they deserve to be lashed publicly. You said to me
   If everything can be interpreted or understood a certain way, then yes, we can make our individual stands and stay there. The point is, is there any understanding which is overwhelmingly in favour of one or the other view
   Seriously, when there are interpretations available should one choose the one that entails that a couple are lashed publicly because they had sex without getting a marriage certificate?

To me, sex outside marriage is not convincing and saying just change the meanings around and look at it from another pov, and it will take on a 180 degree difference is hard to accept especially since there isn't any hard evidence yet from that quarter.

Seriously let's weigh them up. To view sex as exclusive to marriage you would have to
a) View zina or fahisha entailing it (consequence = lashing a couple publicly for their failure to get a marriage certificate)

b) 235-6 believe that essentially the MMA and zawj are the same in this particular instance despite

c) 423 as well as 2431 which distinguishes husbands from MMAs.

d) You would somehow have to say that the muhsinat in 424 is completely unrelated to the muhsinat that occurs at 425. Is there any hypothetical meaning here that could come close to doing this?

e) Give a suggestion other than girlfriend or fiance with regards to the meaning of MMA at 423-25, 2433
Do these verses not clearly suggest a difference between MMA and spouses? AND also suggest that an MMA is for marriage rather than once you marry, then technically your spouse is also your MMA?
So what else can better fit the description than fiance or girlfriend?

Going forth and multiplying without regard to a firm social structure in place for the consequences of such multiplication i.e. marriage is foolhardy.

No. One should be free to go forth but NOT to multiply when no decision about a life-long commitment has been made yet within which going forth could play an important factor. To give a real life example, I overheard a conversation from my aunt where in which a particular individual from her husband's side of the family got divorced purely because in the bedroom things did not work out. How about finding out before deciding on the life long commitment...

You're saying sex resulting in no children is what is not a transgression. Where is this defined?

Or is that a personal opinion based on it has to be or else the consequences are tragic?

It's not explicitly defined which implies unprotected sex is not explicitly prohibited. However I did feel that in 2237 and the
notion of waiting periods there was sufficient implications of not engaging in sex that leads to kids. Also it would be common sense to consider kids only in a marriage. Thus a muslim would recognise this an apply the necessary precaution thereby not transgressing. This necessary precuation is not complete absence of sexual activity. IMO that is an excessive precaution. Anyways, this is how I came to decide on the no child thing via Quran

Another verse to consider is 2237
And if ye divorce them before tamasshunna, but after the fixation of a dower for them, then half of the dower (Is due to them), unless they remit it or (the man's half) is remitted by him in whose hands is the marriage tie; and the remission (of the man's half) is the nearest to righteousness. And do not forget Liberality between yourselves. For Allah sees well all that ye do.

The root of tamassuhunna
Miim-Siin-Siin = To meet or touch or feel a thing with the hand, touch a thing without intervention or interference, strike or smite, afflict or befall, be distressing or difficult of accomplishment.

In 2237 the word tamassuhunna is important. If the word means touch, then we need to determine what kind of touch is being talked about here. It would be highly unreasonable to think that any sort of physical contact is constituted as tamassuhunna in the context of 2237. Here is a cross-reference of the term in the Quran

http//corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=mss#(22376)

In 347 it is clear that Mary is referring to the sort of touch that potentially leads to a child
?She said "My Lord, how can I have a son when no human hasyamsasn (touch(ed)) me?" He said "It is thus that God creates what He wills, when He decrees a command, He merely says to it 'Be,' and it is.??

Thus from this we might say that in 2237, tamassuhunna refers to the sort of touch that leads to a child. This means unprotected sex. However since protected sex does not 100 percent guarantee to prevent potential pregnancies and is thus not 100 percent protection, then it might be the case that it is not a sufficient measure.

Right, why even have laws in place then. Just be excellent to each other.

Why bother with good things when some are gonna misuse them. Hell let's just get rid of the internet (no bomb manuals, piracy, kids being deceived) cars (no crashses and pollution, get bicycles instead), Games consoles (no more epileptic fits and no more gamers that play 40 hours of Diablo then die, also no more obesity. Stick to monopoly, but without the small pieces as kids can choke and die) Awesome films like the Dark Knight rises (no more people like James Holmes (if he is guilty that is)) stick to un-violent films as we don't want to provoke violence...sex (no more unwanted kids, STDs...just do it in marriage...almost 100 percent is not good enough, must have a legal document)

So the only time he transgresses is if uses all precautions for example and the condom bursts. Or if the pills don't work. Good luck to those that had neither condoms or pills. Have sex but don't get children. It's like drink but don't get drunk. Ok

That's like saying So the only time the car driver transgresses, even though following all precautions is when his breaks stop working an he crashes...well the dude should never have driven given the odds of something going wrong with a car. His transgression, his bad.

For only kids then?

No for a lifelong partner. To establish that x and y are so good together, it should be till they die and they should have kids and buy a house together and share in their wealth together etc. Kids is one aspect. The all-encompassing aspect IMO is establishing the life-long partner.

The only reason one would meet up in secret is to discuss a plan or something righteous? Ok.

Thats not what i said, what I was trying to point out was, what happens when I meet her not in secret and then engage in sexual activity? Is 2235 a prohibition? and implication of prohibition? If yes, which part?

Edited thrice to shorten length

[savage_carrot]

I have spent much time on this topic and I have an opinion on that but I will not make it so that I have gotten into an in depth discussion on that particular verse or that I know many different views regarding it. My view on that verse is that should it be the case that one can't look after the orphans justly, then they should marry as that would then result in better care. If they can't handle more than one marriage (which they most likely won't) then they should marry one or get an MMA.
If you believe it is referring to us marrying to take better care of the orphans, do you also believe that multiple marriages are permissible?

No I haven't excluded sex from zina. Just the idea that an unmarried couple engaging in sex = zina.
On what basis?

I sincerely don't, provided that it is not transgressed and there is caution. A good thing should not be restricted just because some may transgress. Could you really fault a couple engaging before getting married? If yes, how?
A good thing? Sex is not a thing. It involves much more than 'pleasure' and much less in many cases. Already explained how and why. If you disagree, well, it's your opinion and in my opinion it is an individual and impractical view.

are not what they apparently are? bit of an assumption isn't it? I take fahisha to mean lewdness which need not include fornication as many on this forum might argue and i take zina as adultry where in which one engages in sex besides their legal partner and my proof of why I would form them over the traditional interpretations is this

1. If you take zina as encompassing a couple engaging in sex without a marriage certificate this entails that their act is intrinsically so wrong that they deserve to be lashed publicly. You said to me
   Quote

If everything can be interpreted or understood a certain way, then yes, we can make our individual stands and stay there. The point is, is there any understanding which is overwhelmingly in favour of one or the other view

Seriously, when there are interpretations available should one choose the one that entails that a couple are lashed publicly because they had sex without getting a marriage certificate?
An assumption? Ironic. Please explain why you don't take fahisha involving anything but fornication from the quran? As well as why zina refers to only adultery from the quran? I already explained my view of it being 'public sex'. Can you disallow that interpretation? It says nothing of marriage certificates...and are we taking muhsinat as married women now? When there are interpretations available, we choose the one that best addresses the verses with solid evidence.

Seriously let's weigh them up. To view sex as exclusive to marriage you would have to
a) View zina or fahisha entailing it (consequence = lashing a couple publicly for their failure to get a marriage certificate)

b) 235-6 believe that essentially the MMA and zawj are the same in this particular instance despite

c) 423 as well as 2431 which distinguishes husbands from MMAs.

d) You would somehow have to say that the muhsinat in 424 is completely unrelated to the muhsinat that occurs at 425. Is there any hypothetical meaning here that could come close to doing this?

e) Give a suggestion other than girlfriend or fiance with regards to the meaning of MMA at 423-25, 2433
Do these verses not clearly suggest a difference between MMA and spouses? AND also suggest that an MMA is for marriage rather than once you marry, then technically your spouse is also your MMA?
So what else can better fit the description than fiance or girlfriend?

a) No, when we don't take a view that it's got anything to do with married/unmarried.
b) Already mentioned in various posts with different ways of taking it. Either mma and spouses both inclusive by right of marriage/farooj dealing with sexual and non sexual aspects with mma and spouses differentiated and allowed the right for different purposes/etc

c) Yes, what about 423 and 2431? Have you noticed that if we take your pov, the latter verse would be telling us that we don't need to guard our private parts with our fathers etc. So basically, we can't marry them but lets unguard and do it as they do in Westeros...hang on, it doesn't even talk about sex but marriage restrictions and eligibility! Seen that way, there are NO restrictions on sex whatsoever. If the whole private part stuff reads only sex then why can we 'unguard' it with the same restricted marriage categories? Does the first part of 2431 have nothing to do with the latter? It has a series of 'ands'...so how would one spin it? Pick and choose the ands referring to this or that but not a continuity? One other understanding is we can't have sex with anyone BUT our spouses because sex is only within marriage and not outside of it. Categories are together in different verses and then separated for emphasis or whatever reason in different verses but must be read within these confines that all the verses themselves state and/or imply. What is this 'oath' you mention that makes an mma eligible for sex anyways? What does it involve other than lets get it on to see if we're life partners...I may or may not marry you, long as that's clear? Where does the fallout from such sexual unions come into play? Play with fire but don't get burnt and if you 'transgress' some imaginary line, it's just an accident? Let it be known that the burns don't only come in the form of children. Emotional attachments form, entanglements result, stress and heartbreak the same as an actual marriage. That is if we don't take it as just a booty call for sampling the wares before we become lifelong customers but we can change our minds anytime even then. What is the difference!? Why not put a ring on it and get it over with. And it's not even fire anyways, it's dealing with fire in an inadvisable manner. I'm starting to hate analogies.

d) Have you got a meaning for muhsinat yet? What is it?
e) Above

Even if we accept a difference in MMA and spouse in certain scenarios, you still can't make it mean sex absolutely and irrevocably in every situation. Guarding chastity could have other connotations as well, inclusive of keeping away from making out or dry humping through the clothes. Nasty example but the point needs to hit home. Relaxing chastity amongst some categories doesn't automatically mean have sex. You're taking chastity as black and white sex and nothing else. What else can better fit? A whole host of other things imo.

No. One should be free to go forth but NOT to multiply when no decision about a life-long commitment has been made yet within which going forth could play an important factor. To give a real life example, I overheard a conversation from my aunt where in which a particular individual from her husband's side of the family got divorced purely because in the bedroom things did not work out. How about finding out before deciding on the life long commitment...
Where is this life long commitment thing coming in from anyways? So what if the guy got divorced because things didn't work out? People get divorced every day for so many different reasons. I mean, I'm boggled at this. Why not live together too while having sex because what if the guy doesn't put the toilet seat down or the toothbrush cap back on? better to know. What if he smells his ear wax in private and you catch a glimpse? What if he snores? What if it's all that and one simply can't walk into mordor like that? Why not have a kid as well so that we know what the kids would be like...heaven forbid it's a crappy kid after a marriage. Or that they are crappy parents? Why not do everything together before marriage so we know for certain that this is for life and that it's all set?

Fortunately, the quran does temper these scenarios by saying sure, if you changed your mind before/after, for whatever reasons, follow these procedures depending on what the situation is and that's that. The quran tells us one should do it solemnly and for fruitful reasons, but this also gives rise to the inevitable abusers and the oblivious who have no idea what a marriage entails even after marrying. Didn't you want the abusers and non abusers to co-exist peacefully when it involves a good thing? What is the point of marriage otherwise anyways? Legal benefits/etc? Like I asked why is this different than marriage for sex and how. The only other thing would be for having kids...which is illogical anyways. Nowhere is marriage only for having kids.

It's not explicitly defined which implies unprotected sex is not explicitly prohibited. However I did feel that in 2237 and the
notion of waiting periods there was sufficient implications of not engaging in sex that leads to kids. Also it would be common sense to consider kids only in a marriage. Thus a muslim would recognise this an apply the necessary precaution thereby not transgressing. This necessary precuation is not complete absence of sexual activity. IMO that is an excessive precaution. Anyways, this is how I came to decide on the no child thing via Quran

Another verse to consider is 2237
And if ye divorce them before tamasshunna, but after the fixation of a dower for them, then half of the dower (Is due to them), unless they remit it or (the man's half) is remitted by him in whose hands is the marriage tie; and the remission (of the man's half) is the nearest to righteousness. And do not forget Liberality between yourselves. For Allah sees well all that ye do.

The root of tamassuhunna
Miim-Siin-Siin = To meet or touch or feel a thing with the hand, touch a thing without intervention or interference, strike or smite, afflict or befall, be distressing or difficult of accomplishment.

In 2237 the word tamassuhunna is important. If the word means touch, then we need to determine what kind of touch is being talked about here. It would be highly unreasonable to think that any sort of physical contact is constituted as tamassuhunna in the context of 2237. Here is a cross-reference of the term in the Quran

http//corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=mss#(22376)

In 347 it is clear that Mary is referring to the sort of touch that potentially leads to a child
?She said "My Lord, how can I have a son when no human hasyamsasn (touch(ed)) me?" He said "It is thus that God creates what He wills, when He decrees a command, He merely says to it 'Be,' and it is.??

Thus from this we might say that in 2237, tamassuhunna refers to the sort of touch that leads to a child. This means unprotected sex. However since protected sex does not 100 percent guarantee to prevent potential pregnancies and is thus not 100 percent protection, then it might be the case that it is not a sufficient measure.
Another area where we try to fit our belief of well, unprotected sex is really bad outside a marriage so the quran must have mentioned it. Yes a divorce procedure where if you have sex, you could have a kid and one would have to restart the count after said sex and follow the procedures in place for that. Just notice 'the notion of waiting periods there was sufficient implications of not engaging in sex that leads to kids'... The notion of waiting periods isn't FOR childless sex. It's a divorce procedure, the guy isn't still doing the woman. If he is, the count is void and has to restart if he still wants to divorce, from scratch. The count is for knowing if the woman is pregnant for sure before either dropping it and/or proceeding with the other injunctions on what to do in case of a child. This is clear. If one was to take it another way, using similar logic, they'd say the waiting period has sufficient implications of not engaging in sex outside marriage. You can't use this for your point. The other verses you quote have nothing to do with your view either. Is there a special touch that will guarantee a child? Couples have unprotected sex for months, sometimes years to conceive a child...head down to any maternity forum. A close friend of mine had unprotected sex for 7 years before she got pregnant. Thus what does this touch mean other than sex? Unprotected is clearly you adding on your own views, the verses say nothing of the sort.

hy bother with good things when some are gonna misuse them. Hell let's just get rid of the internet (no bomb manuals, piracy, kids being deceived) cars (no crashses and pollution, get bicycles instead), Games consoles (no more epileptic fits and no more gamers that play 40 hours of Diablo then die, also no more obesity. Stick to monopoly, but without the small pieces as kids can choke and die) Awesome films like the Dark Knight rises (no more people like James Holmes (if he is guilty that is)) stick to un-violent films as we don't want to provoke violence...sex (no more unwanted kids, STDs...just do it in marriage...almost 100 percent is not good enough, must have a legal document)
You can do that yet not accept that sex outside marriage involves children and the very fabric of your society falls apart if the children (the future) aren't taken care of with stability, legal injunctions for their protection and so on and so forth. Which the quran in my view provides. People abuse, anyone with any perception knows that. Sex has a lot potential to be abused, the consequences are far reaching community/society wide and not trivial. How are things dealt with anyways? Driving? Rules for such. Ratings/restrictions on media? Rules for such. Crazy individual killing off 50 people? Rules for such. Food places aiding obesity? Rules for such. Piracy? Rules for such. Pollution? Rules for such. Cigarettes? Rules for such. What doesn't have a rule yet? Someone playing diablo and dying. We don't usually make rules for suicide involving something akin to a toothbrush through the eye via either deliberate or involuntary misuse. We could or we could also learn from it and teach our kids perhaps with rules regarding usage of whatever, for what purpose and with what restrictions.

Coming back to the point, where are the rules for how children and their mothers are dealt with outside marriage IF an accident occurs? Fine let him be a transgressor and burn in hell, but what do we do if such occurs and the dude doesn't want to stick around with that potential life partner? Is that also going to be gleaned from marriage verses? If there is a category without explicit (even implicit) mention of 'protected' sex, it just is sex...where are the rules on what to do in this situation? There's not a word on this highly pertinent sexual but not spouse category's issues seeing as how it's pardon the expression, an accident waiting to happen and that accident is a child? All it says is eligible to have sex to work out whether compatibility exists? Funny thing is, we don't even need to get into any of this because one of the ways why none of this matters or even exists is if the quran's premise is sex within marriage.

Lack of proper care regarding children may have no immediate effect but a long term one which makes it easier to miss or ignore. The quran addresses so many things which harm society (which is the major focus when we deal with the 'legal' verses).

That's like saying So the only time the car driver transgresses, even though following all precautions is when his breaks stop working an he crashes...well the dude should never have driven given the odds of something going wrong with a car. His transgression, his bad.
You're the one insisting we can have sex with gf's and HAVE to use precautions. The gf's and cars and the sex with the condoms is all you. And that wasn't even what the point was. The point was once again, if your pov is what the quran is really saying then unlike the 19 doctrine where only this generation has to accept the miracle, many generations would have had sex with gf's allowed. Many generations didn't have your modern conveniences. Do the math. Expecting people to conform to a certain standard of behaviour in regards to sex without any laws in place (or the 'precautions' available today) to ensure that standard is like trying to run things on a honour system. Impractical. We can already see what happens. It isn't a mystery. One can compare it to whatever, at the end of the day...it depends on what importance the consequences mean to someone. If it's just a con just like any other con, cool. I completely disagree. Btw, you didn't bring up abortion as a last resort for childless sex.

No for a lifelong partner. To establish that x and y are so good together, it should be till they die and they should have kids and buy a house together and share in their wealth together etc. Kids is one aspect. The all-encompassing aspect IMO is establishing the life-long partner.
Ah yeah. The concept of a life long partner we are entirely sure is going to be our life long partner because we'll have checked them out previously and till death do us part. So it is just a statement of commitment. Why can't we live with them again and/or buy a house and/or share wealth? Establishing the life long partner is the goal, while we are living our lives with one or the other potential lifelong partner that may not make the grade. I personally don't think such a view of marriage is realistic nor should it be. It can be what one wants from a marriage, but few out of many find such a lifelong partner that they are happily satisfied with for the rest of their lives and not just settling, regardless of whether you can have sex outside of marriage to find such a person or not. There is compromise thrust upon one if you're in a relationship such as marriage having gone through the hoops so on and so forth. Compare that to girlfriends and boyfriends. What deep dark commitment is there? I may marry you if we have great sex? but I can also reject you based on the way you do it in bed or based on anything else? Are we going to have a list next of valid rejections 'from the quran' in such cases of rejecting a potential life long partner? Would that be different from the list of valid rejections 'from the quran' in case we reject a spouse and want out? What is the difference between this and marriage anyways?!?

Thats not what i said, what I was trying to point out was, what happens when I meet her not in secret and then engage in sexual activity? Is 2235 a prohibition? and implication of prohibition? If yes, which part?
Hanging out with the gf was a euphemism? Apologies. If you're saying that the implication of sexual activities is already there since I'm allowed to have sex with my gf as long as I publicly announce such implications (which to me doesn't make sense and is a way I wouldn't see the verse) then we are back to the sex outside marriage views where tying the marriage knot and waiting periods are discussed.

[nimnimak_11]

If you believe it is referring to us marrying to take better care of the orphans, do you also believe that multiple marriages are permissible?

Yes provided there is consent and somehow the man can handle being fair to all women equally.

A good thing? Sex is not a thing. It involves much more than 'pleasure' and much less in many cases. Already explained how and why
and I responded.
Your explanations
it holds no practical value given what we know of sex and people, history, all around you.
Do you think that almost 100 percent certainty holds no practical value? Would you also ban driving due to the odds of crashing and hurting/killing others?

Please explain why you don't take fahisha involving anything but fornication from the quran?

Lewdness best denotes fahisha IMO as lewdness encompasses much with regards to sexual transgressions ranging from harassing to...whatever and we need a term like that in the Quran IMO. There can be subjectivity in fahisha. Some may claim certain sexual acts as lewd whilst to others it may not be. This could then be discussed between people. Sex between a couple IMO is not lewd thus not fahisha. Could you explain why you would take fahisha to entail sexual activity between an unmarried couple?

Zina From the possible meanings the word entails, Adultery is amongst them. Does it make sense to punish those who commit adultery? Yes. Does it make sense to punish the couple engaging in sex without getting married? No Could zina understood as adultery work in the Quran? Yes. Zina = adultery
This is pretty much the same approach to Daraba in 434 Possible meanings....does this/that make sense? Could it work within the Quran yes then, not beat but move out/go on a journey.

I already explained my view of it being 'public sex'. Can you disallow that interpretation?

IMO it's not public sex. The issue of four witnesses don't necessarily point to public sex. I would put public sex down to fahisha but not zina because IMO there should be a different punishment for public sexual activity.

When there are interpretations available, we choose the one that best addresses the verses with solid evidence.
I agree. Why would you necessarily include a couple engaging in sex as committing Zina? I did not ask before since you did not want to engage in this discussion but seeing as how most of your argumentative force with regards to the exclusivity of sex to marriage relies upon these two concepts (IMO), perhaps we should discuss them. I'm not single minded, I will acknowledge if the evidence outweighs my own in both interpretation and reason.

a) No, when we don't take a view that it's got anything to do with married/unmarried.

My 18 year old kid engages in sex with his girlfriend. Unfortunately for him a couple of idiots intruded on his privacy, taped the whole thing and youtubed it. Should he and his girlfriend be lashed 100 times in public? Is this practical, rational, just, humane?
On the other hand, my 18 year old kid seduces a married woman....I'd drive him to the authorities to have him lashed publicly. He is 18 years old and he should determine right from wrong. If he is gonna risk someone else's marriage for his pleasure, he should get what's coming to him.
Here is another My kid gets his girlfriend pregnant. Stupid I know. Should he be lashed 100 times? Wouldn't that be more stupid?

b) Already mentioned in various posts with different ways of taking it. Either mma and spouses both inclusive by right of marriage/farooj dealing with sexual and non sexual aspects with mma and spouses differentiated and allowed the right for different purposes/etc

Correct me if im wrong, So once they marry, then they can unguard their parts? Why not just say that? Ok in conjunction with what verse can we take 235-6 to imply this? Are you also suggesting another way of taking it
You can ungaurd to zawj and MMA but there is a limit of how much/what type of unguarding you can do with the MMA. I can agree to this IF we can find implications of this. I took 2237 and the waiting periods as implications and accepted them and also accepted what was left available to do. However IMO you are not accepting what is left to do purely on the basis of the concepts of zina and fahisha (forgive and correct me if my assumption is wrong) so what else is there to make us think that there is more limits on what is left for us to do?

Have you noticed that if we take your pov, the latter verse would be telling us that we don't need to guard our private parts with our fathers etc.

Of course I noticed and I responded. If my aunt is my doctor, then I may unguard my private parts to here for health purposes. Hence I am not prohibited to unguard to my father etc. my private parts.
Seen that way, there are NO restrictions on sex whatsoever.
Lewdness?
I am told to not be lewd. Thus how I ungaurd my private parts to my MMA is dictated by what is lewd. Could this have been better conveyed with regards to how/when one unguards their private parts to their MMA?

hang on, it doesn't even talk about sex but marriage restrictions and eligibility!

If I marry my aunt is that lewd? yes hence the prohibition. If my aunt is my MMA? Is that lewd? Depends. Sex partner? YES doctor? No.

Does the first part of 2431 have nothing to do with the latter? It has a series of 'ands'...so how would one spin it?

2431 uses Aw which is exactly the same term used in 236 when distinguishing different classes. I'm not sure what you mean here. Could you please clarify? Does not 2433 imply that when you come to marry an MMA, if you see good in them then marry them?

One other understanding is we can't have sex with anyone BUT our spouses because sex is only within marriage and not outside of it.

The only implication of this IMO is in the term zina which can be understood differently and given my 18 year old examples I doubt it. Also what specifically and exactly do you understand by the unguarding of the private parts in the case of 424? I have a muhsinat MMA. Quran says for me there is no blame to unguard. What should I take this as??? Can i show her my...? see her...? Touch her private... ? what sort of touch?

What is this 'oath' you mention that makes an mma eligible for sex anyways?

Depends. If our oaths are such that we are committed to each other such that we be faithful to each other, can have sex with each other etc. then we'l go forth together and abstain from the multiplication since we believe in 2237's implications, waiting periods and engage in what is left as permissible.

I'm starting to hate analogies.

I loved your analogies. They put a smile on my face. Thanks.

Emotional attachments form, entanglements result, stress and heartbreak the same as an actual marriage.

I know people can get emotionally hurt. But they can also do so from a marriage. There is nothing different here. Both know what they are getting to. Both need to learn, gain experience find a life long partner IMO. It might be the first one is the right one the AWESOME! marry her. But if not then pursue until you find the right one.

d) Have you got a meaning for muhsinat yet? What is it?

Independent. Fits well in 424-25 and everywhere else as far as I know, contrasts well with fatayat. I'd have an issue with understanding muhsinat as chaste. How would it fit well in 424-25. Can't the fatayat be chaste? Is fatayat not a virgin whilst muhsinat are? The fatayat becomes muhsin after marriage, is that chaste or independent. IMO independent from dependent.

Have you got a meaning other than independent? I think i've established the impossibility of taking it to mean married or chaste. What is left that fits well?

Guarding chastity could have other connotations as well

Is there a suggestion with regards to the guarding of chastity? As far as i've looked traditionally guard farooj has been taken to mean guard chastity and the muhsin term has also been rendered as chaste despite problems. Is there any verse that suggests the guarding of chastity as necessary?

Why not have a kid as well so that we know what the kids would be like...heaven forbid it's a crappy kid after a marriage

Good point. There has to be a reasonable cut off point. I don't think having a kid first then seeing if a good family is formed then marry is a good move. But engaging with the partner as best as possible allows to assess the partner as best as possible. It may well be that the guy has a house and wants her to move in with her or vice versa this is a good move to determine whether they can live well with each other. Hence perhaps (just off the top of my head) why marrying a muhsinat is preferable to marrying a fatayat.

What if he smells his ear wax in private and you catch a glimpse?

nope Unguarding his private parts will become significantly more challenging for him.

What is the point of marriage otherwise anyways? Legal benefits/etc?

My conception is that by proposing, I make it (life-long commitment) official. Legal benefits follow such as inheritance and so on.

Fortunately, the quran does temper these scenarios by saying sure, if you changed your mind before/after, for whatever reasons, follow these procedures depending on what the situation is and that's that

At what point do we take the marriage as being consumated?
Holding hands?! full dowery!!! Impratical IMO
Touched her private parts? -[ (sorry) full dowery!! again impractical IMO

Another area where we try to fit our belief of well, unprotected sex is really bad outside a marriage so the quran must have mentioned it

Does the Quran mention drive safe? No but it is entailed in the overall message of not being reckless. Either way 2237 was there and I took it as best as I could. What do you propose?

The notion of waiting periods isn't FOR childless sex. It's a divorce procedure, the guy isn't still doing the woman

I know its a divorce procedure. Whats the waiting period for? To ensure no kids right? So if he engages in sexual activity with her and guarantees no kids, then what? Does he have to start from scratch?!

Thus what does this touch mean other than sex? Unprotected is clearly you adding on your own views, the verses say nothing of the sort.

When you consider the purpose of the waiting period, is it not for the sake of ensuring that there is no child? So what's left? If this is me adding my own view then I ask of you what is this "touch" that requires a full dowery rather than half and a waiting period to follow it?? My focus is on what is left. It is not to add to what is left.

Sex has a lot potential to be abused, the consequences are far reaching community/society wide and not trivial. How are things dealt with anyways? Driving? Rules for such. Ratings/restrictions on media? Rules for such.

So if it so happens that my 18 year kid gets caught and youtubed, I should hand him to the authorities to have him and his girlfriend lashed?
Your President. What would you do? ban contraception? Lash every one who ends up with a child outside marriage? Many would still take their chances. They could keep the acts to those that guarantee no children (no need for contraception if there is no penetration) or one party just keeps their pants on -[ ((sorry) I want to get my point across). But if such decisions are made, IMO the government is gonna go down.

People abuse, anyone with any perception knows that.

People are also benevolent. Depends who you run into.

where are the rules for how children and their mothers are dealt with outside marriage IF an accident occurs? Fine let him be a transgressor and burn in hell, but what do we do if such occurs and the dude doesn't want to stick around with that potential life partner?

Worst case scenario social services will look after the kids or adoption. Goal must be to ensure the good life of the child.
Just as you can't force a couple to stay together in marriage after having kids (divorce is obviously hard on the kid) you can't really do much when such an accident (which should be very rare if practised properly) occurs. I agree that the goal should be to wipe out unwanted pregnancies just as the goal should be to wipe theft. But only within reason. You could cut off the hand of the thief who steals, I'm pretty sure he won't steal again. Look at the crime rate in places that do such. But is that reasonable? Sorry for the analogy. Similarly you could somehow try and ensure that no one has sex without getting married first. How practical is that and how unfair is it upon those who would engage in the activity appropriately?

Funny thing is, we don't even need to get into any of this because one of the ways why none of this matters or even exists is if the quran's premise is sex within marriage.

If such a premise exists I wouldn't deny it. Initially I took it as a given that sex is exclusive to marriage. Reading the book, conveyed otherwise. Where is this premise?

Btw, you didn't bring up abortion as a last resort for childless sex.

I don't need to. Its a seperate debate which I will engage if you want. AFAIK don't kill your unborn children. Abortion risks that. Gotta determine when a foetus is considered as an unborn child we can only do that via science, and philosophical reasoning. Science may get its facts wrong (i.e foetus feels pain after 3 months, this might be wrong though unlikely) thus IMO not worth the risk of abortion under any circumstance unless mother really wants it and it can reasonably be said that it is not a child. Just a personal opinion though.

Im just trying to show that when you look hard and realise what's left, you are left with childless sex. Had it been the case it was clear AND IT SO EASILY COULD HAVE BEEN that you only engage in sexual activity with your spouse, then there is a clear limit of sexual activity upon the MMAs and we would be forced to think that when I unguard my private parts to my muhsinat MMA, its only to show her for non-sexual purposes if that is at all possible thus leaving only say doctors and caretakers accessing my farooj.

Why can't we live with them again and/or buy a house and/or share wealth? Establishing the life long partner is the goal, while we are living our lives with one or the other potential lifelong partner that may not make the grade. I personally don't think such a view of marriage is realistic nor should it be.

Perhaps your right. Kids is the main reason for marriage ONLY in the sense of establishing inheritance and legal support as suggested by Johan otherwise whats the difference? But I do think there is significance in making official who you've deemed as marriage material of which starting a family may well be the primary aspect. I agree with you in the sense that a marriage benefits children more than it benefits a couple.

I may marry you if we have great sex?
No but if it becomes the case that they just can't live together because sexually they are completely incompatible if such a thing is possible (I go by what I have heard in this case) then surely it is important to establish that compatibility and not have surprises on the night of the wedding.

Are we going to have a list next of valid rejections 'from the quran' in such cases of rejecting a potential life long partner? Would that be different from the list of valid rejections 'from the quran' in case we reject a spouse and want out? What is the difference between this and marriage anyways?!?

Everyone can be deceptive whether in or out of marriage. The goal is to be competent enough to avoid being deceived. one needs to recognise when someone is just after sex, money or whatever so that one does not get hurt or used. This is regardless of whether it is within marriage or out of it.

Hanging out with the gf was a euphemism? Apologies.

No I meant I liked your comment on how having something righteous to say is not a euphemism. The women in that verse may not be MMA. IF we are gonna assume that they are, then I won't meet her in secret when my intention is other than to discuss righteous matters. Should we choose to talk about music, or holidays or games or films, then i'l make sure that someone knows where I am. Similarly with sexual activity. I'l make sure that I am not meeting her secretly.

[hawk99]

You can have sex with your wife and those who belong to you such as captives or slaves.

I don't know what country you are in or from but in the U.S. we are not allowed to have captives or slaves. all that is left is marriage. sorry no bootie calls! O0

Peace.
And they maintain their chastity.

Only with their spouses, or those who are rightfully theirs, do they have sexual relations; they are not to be blamed.

Those who transgress these limits are the transgressors.

[nimnimak_11]

You can have sex with your wife and those who belong to you such as captives or slaves.

You can have sex with your wife. You can also have sex with those who you have oaths with For example your girlfriend. (That is what I'm arguing for)
Can you have sex with your wife and also have sex with someone whom you have an oath/s with? No that would be zina.

Can you flirt with someone whist your married? No that would be fahisha (lewdness)

And they maintain their chastity.

235 And they guard their private parts
This is not chastity. It could entail chastity, but it's more than that.

Only with their spouses, or those who are rightfully theirs, do they have sexual relations; they are not to be blamed.

Such as one's girlfriend.

If you think engaging in sex with one's girlfriend to be wrong, then don't do it. If you think the Quran prohibits it but think that it's not wrong, then make sure that the prohibition in the Quran is there before you accept something that may not make sense to you.
If you haven't read the argument for sex not being exclusive to marriage

http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604063.0
There are obviously counter views. Check them and hopefully you'l get to what is right or what is best.

Good luck

[nimnimak_11]

When you write an Arabic noun singularly without other text, never place "a" at the end. Nouns in Arabic are nominative in default state with ending "u".

Google search and find if this singular word denoting "oath" exists in some text as subject of a verb indicated by "u" at the end since subjects are always nominative.

Salam Mazhar

May I ask where this is going?
Will it go anywhere other than that Ma Malekat Aymunkum (shortened to MMA) will be translated to those whom your oaths possess or those whom you possess via oaths?

You have yet to answer

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?

Am I to assume that you currently have no theory with regards to this?

edit

[savage_carrot]

Yes provided there is consent and somehow the man can handle being fair to all women equally.
Alright, so you said "My main issue with understanding 235-6 as just clarifying that zawj is actually MMA (thus legally binding) are certain verses. For example 43" It's telling you to marry the women right in the verse itself (marry multiple from the women or one from the women or the mma)! Secondly, how does taking care of the orphans by a unmarried MMA helped by you having sex with them? Is this some kind of babysitter fetish that the quran is aiding?

Do you think that almost 100 percent certainty holds no practical value? Would you also ban driving due to the odds of crashing and hurting/killing others?
Do you not understand the fact that you can't expect people to do that in real life without laws? The analogy is wrong. We would fine the crap out of and jail the person for breaking the rules on the roads. Not let them drive as they chose on 'just be a good driver mkay?'. Where do you have these rules regarding sex and children in unmarried scenarios for example? If they do it and get the woman pregnant and are unmarried...what are the rules? This is clearly and evidently impractical.

The quran did give rulings on many many matters...it gave rulings on marriage, divorce and children meaning that was an important matter. To say well, we have to twist and turn and read things into things because there are no explicit rules on a similar situation...should be a clue. There aren't any. Before you once again run with the 'but, but almost 100%!!'...bear in mind this is for all generations after the quran and that there is nothing anywhere that says have sex but don't have children within or without a marriage. What this means is clear to most people.

Lewdness best denotes fahisha IMO as lewdness encompasses much with regards to sexual transgressions ranging from harassing to...whatever and we need a term like that in the Quran IMO. There can be subjectivity in fahisha. Some may claim certain sexual acts as lewd whilst to others it may not be. This could then be discussed between people. Sex between a couple IMO is not lewd thus not fahisha. Could you explain why you would take fahisha to entail sexual activity between an unmarried couple?

Zina From the possible meanings the word entails, Adultery is amongst them. Does it make sense to punish those who commit adultery? Yes. Does it make sense to punish the couple engaging in sex without getting married? No Could zina understood as adultery work in the Quran? Yes. Zina = adultery
This is pretty much the same approach to Daraba in 434 Possible meanings....does this/that make sense? Could it work within the Quran yes then, not beat but move out/go on a journey.
Fahisha is subjective, alright. Let's leave fahisha out then. I already explained multiple times that 'public sex' is my view of zina.

http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=11629.msg80746#msg80746
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=13905.msg122241#msg122241
etc

IMO it's not public sex. The issue of four witnesses don't necessarily point to public sex. I would put public sex down to fahisha but not zina because IMO there should be a different punishment for public sexual activity.
What else does it point to? Who is out there having sex in front of 4 witnesses or allowing 4 different people to see them having sex 4 different times other than public sex? It's obvious.

I agree. Why would you necessarily include a couple engaging in sex as committing Zina? I did not ask before since you did not want to engage in this discussion but seeing as how most of your argumentative force with regards to the exclusivity of sex to marriage relies upon these two concepts (IMO), perhaps we should discuss them. I'm not single minded, I will acknowledge if the evidence outweighs my own in both interpretation and reason.
yeah most of my argumentative force in regards to the exclusivity of sex to marriage would rely on where there are restrictions not only zina et al. Not exactly something unheard of. And I did not want to engage but it appears as if you either haven't read the discussion on these concepts and/or you disagree with them completely based on overwhelming evidence to the contrary...which I'm not seeing.

My 18 year old kid engages in sex with his girlfriend. Unfortunately for him a couple of idiots intruded on his privacy, taped the whole thing and youtubed it. Should he and his girlfriend be lashed 100 times in public? Is this practical, rational, just, humane?
On the other hand, my 18 year old kid seduces a married woman....I'd drive him to the authorities to have him lashed publicly. He is 18 years old and he should determine right from wrong. If he is gonna risk someone else's marriage for his pleasure, he should get what's coming to him.
Here is another My kid gets his girlfriend pregnant. Stupid I know. Should he be lashed 100 times? Wouldn't that be more stupid?
Read the links.

Correct me if im wrong, So once they marry, then they can unguard their parts? Why not just say that? Ok in conjunction with what verse can we take 235-6 to imply this? Are you also suggesting another way of taking it
You can ungaurd to zawj and MMA but there is a limit of how much/what type of unguarding you can do with the MMA. I can agree to this IF we can find implications of this. I took 2237 and the waiting periods as implications and accepted them and also accepted what was left available to do. However IMO you are not accepting what is left to do purely on the basis of the concepts of zina and fahisha (forgive and correct me if my assumption is wrong) so what else is there to make us think that there is more limits on what is left for us to do?
I must say I'm surprised. After all this, to say that 'not accepting what to do' on the basis of zina and fahisha? Awesome. Forget forgiveness, I regret participating at this point. Yes, after they marry they can unguard their parts, if it involves something sexual then the rest. You're the one who's insisting on a miracle touch that guarantees a child and a similarly miracle touch that doesn't. This is not only absurd but pure insertion on your part.

Of course I noticed and I responded. If my aunt is my doctor, then I may unguard my private parts to here for health purposes. Hence I am not prohibited to unguard to my father etc. my private parts.
So unguard private parts doesn't mean sex?

Lewdness?
I am told to not be lewd. Thus how I ungaurd my private parts to my MMA is dictated by what is lewd. Could this have been better conveyed with regards to how/when one unguards their private parts to their MMA?
Subjective. It's clear to me that unguarding doesn't include sexual connotations in any category but a spouse.

If I marry my aunt is that lewd? yes hence the prohibition. If my aunt is my MMA? Is that lewd? Depends. Sex partner? YES doctor? No.
So marrying a first cousin is not lewd? Subjective. All you have are restrictions to marriage.

2431 uses Aw which is exactly the same term used in 236 when distinguishing different classes. I'm not sure what you mean here. Could you please clarify? Does not 2433 imply that when you come to marry an MMA, if you see good in them then marry them?
I was referring to the and. Already discussed 2433. Please refer to that understanding based on the entire discussion so far.

The only implication of this IMO is in the term zina which can be understood differently and given my 18 year old examples I doubt it. Also what specifically and exactly do you understand by the unguarding of the private parts in the case of 424? I have a muhsinat MMA. Quran says for me there is no blame to unguard. What should I take this as??? Can i show her my...? see her...? Touch her private... ? what sort of touch?
Read the links. Already explained.

Depends. If our oaths are such that we are committed to each other such that we be faithful to each other, can have sex with each other etc. then we'l go forth together and abstain from the multiplication since we believe in 2237's implications, waiting periods and engage in what is left as permissible.
The first part is the same as a marriage, only you add 'I may marry you or not, just checking'...which you've left out for whatever reason. The second part is absurd as explained.

I know people can get emotionally hurt. But they can also do so from a marriage. There is nothing different here. Both know what they are getting to. Both need to learn, gain experience find a life long partner IMO. It might be the first one is the right one the AWESOME! marry her. But if not then pursue until you find the right one.
Seriously? Trial wives then? Like I keep pointing out and being ignored for no sane reason is...there is no difference OTHER than 'I may or not marry you, just checking'. The right one can turn into the wrong one. Are you saying that will never happen after a marriage? A miraculous guaranteed right one forever and a day (I just know it in my bones) type? Since there is no way to take that view in the quran or common sense or the way things actually happen in relationships involving people...the above is absurd.

Independent. Fits well in 424-25 and everywhere else as far as I know, contrasts well with fatayat. I'd have an issue with understanding muhsinat as chaste. How would it fit well in 424-25. Can't the fatayat be chaste? Is fatayat not a virgin whilst muhsinat are? The fatayat becomes muhsin after marriage, is that chaste or independent. IMO independent from dependent.

Have you got a meaning other than independent? I think i've established the impossibility of taking it to mean married or chaste. What is left that fits well?
What does independent mean? Financially independent? Let's take marriage...independent from parents? Independent from what? How well does this go with the meaning of the root and what it implies, did you check? What do virgins have to do with anything...? You're the one who's established a conclusion, I haven't...keeping my options open.

Is there a suggestion with regards to the guarding of chastity? As far as i've looked traditionally guard farooj has been taken to mean guard chastity and the muhsin term has also been rendered as chaste despite problems. Is there any verse that suggests the guarding of chastity as necessary?
What do you mean by any verse that suggests guarding of chastity as necessary??

Good point. There has to be a reasonable cut off point. I don't think having a kid first then seeing if a good family is formed then marry is a good move. But engaging with the partner as best as possible allows to assess the partner as best as possible. It may well be that the guy has a house and wants her to move in with her or vice versa this is a good move to determine whether they can live well with each other. Hence perhaps (just off the top of my head) why marrying a muhsinat is preferable to marrying a fatayat.
Why should others take what you think is reasonable if there is no cut off point mentioned?

Unguarding his private parts will become significantly more challenging for him.
He can just flash her when she least expects it. It's the miraculous touch that will be significantly more challenging. Then again, there's always surprise sex.

My conception is that by proposing, I make it (life-long commitment) official. Legal benefits follow such as inheritance and so on.
So now we have multiple oaths. The 'I may marry you' oaths, the 'I will marry you' oaths, the 'I am marrying you' oaths and the 'I have married you' oaths. Right.

At what point do we take the marriage as being consumated?
Holding hands?! full dowery!!! Impratical IMO
Touched her private parts? -[ (sorry) full dowery!! again impractical IMO
What if we had oral sex but didn't do the other kind? What if the woman doesn't have a uterus so sex is no big deal? What if we used the back door? What if we kissed? Touched the mountains if not the sky? What if a virgin was infertile? If we take the verse to referring to all kinds of situations and all kinds of women and giving a general injunction to cover all that must be obeyed regardless of what you think you did or should do...what is your problem with that?!? If you don't want to pay full dowry, don't touch them sexually. Any acts of touching which are non sexual can be justified as such. 'Touching' can include a sexual act that can lead to a child, it doesn't have to be the only one.

Does the Quran mention drive safe? No but it is entailed in the overall message of not being reckless. Either way 2237 was there and I took it as best as I could. What do you propose?
2237 has nothing to do with sex using condoms.

I know its a divorce procedure. Whats the waiting period for? To ensure no kids right? So if he engages in sexual activity with her and guarantees no kids, then what? Does he have to start from scratch?!
dear god. First, you're divorcing the woman...you stay away from anything sexual. Remember 434? Whether it's for kids or to make a damn point...you stay away from sex, miraculous touches or no.

When you consider the purpose of the waiting period, is it not for the sake of ensuring that there is no child? So what's left? If this is me adding my own view then I ask of you what is this "touch" that requires a full dowery rather than half and a waiting period to follow it?? My focus is on what is left. It is not to add to what is left.
Anything sexual is off the menu. My observation in all this has been, it takes a lot of effort to distinguish between sexual and non sexual apparently. And instead we start cataloging various acts of various sorts.

So if it so happens that my 18 year kid gets caught and youtubed, I should hand him to the authorities to have him and his girlfriend lashed?
Your President. What would you do? ban contraception? Lash every one who ends up with a child outside marriage? Many would still take their chances. They could keep the acts to those that guarantee no children (no need for contraception if there is no penetration) or one party just keeps their pants on -[ ((sorry) I want to get my point across). But if such decisions are made, IMO the government is gonna go down.
Read the links.

People are also benevolent. Depends who you run into.
What does being benevolent have to do in the context of what I'm talking about? We're talking about system abuse. And it's a fact that systems are abused consistently. You have rules, accountability, punishments etc built in to stop the abuse. Not letting it go on as we so choose and everything will fall into place.

Worst case scenario social services will look after the kids or adoption. Goal must be to ensure the good life of the child.
Just as you can't force a couple to stay together in marriage after having kids (divorce is obviously hard on the kid) you can't really do much when such an accident (which should be very rare if practised properly) occurs. I agree that the goal should be to wipe out unwanted pregnancies just as the goal should be to wipe theft. But only within reason. You could cut off the hand of the thief who steals, I'm pretty sure he won't steal again. Look at the crime rate in places that do such. But is that reasonable? Sorry for the analogy. Similarly you could somehow try and ensure that no one has sex without getting married first. How practical is that and how unfair is it upon those who would engage in the activity appropriately?
So your view is what is going on right now as it is. Tell people not to engage in sex that results in kids...and let the chips fall as they may onto the shoulders of the state. Abuse exists because of freedom of choice. Rules are in place to limit that freedom of choice to do as we will in order to deal with the abuse/consequences because people can't or won't do the right thing. Is it unfair to the people who do the right thing? Sure, if one was living on an island. Unfortunately, these rules/laws deal with social aspects...not that of an individual who will do the right thing. Your argument in this is firstly, the rules are different and secondly, if they aren't it would be wrong because it would take away the freedom of choice from an individual who will do the right thing.

If such a premise exists I wouldn't deny it. Initially I took it as a given that sex is exclusive to marriage. Reading the book, conveyed otherwise. Where is this premise?
So you came to it from such a premise and reading the book gave you such explicit statements to the contrary that any other premise was blown away. Guess everyone else is just blind or biased.

I don't need to. Its a seperate debate which I will engage if you want. AFAIK don't kill your unborn children. Abortion risks that. Gotta determine when a foetus is considered as an unborn child we can only do that via science, and philosophical reasoning. Science may get its facts wrong (i.e foetus feels pain after 3 months, this might be wrong though unlikely) thus IMO not worth the risk of abortion under any circumstance unless mother really wants it and it can reasonably be said that it is not a child. Just a personal opinion though.

Im just trying to show that when you look hard and realise what's left, you are left with childless sex. Had it been the case it was clear AND IT SO EASILY COULD HAVE BEEN that you only engage in sexual activity with your spouse, then there is a clear limit of sexual activity upon the MMAs and we would be forced to think that when I unguard my private parts to my muhsinat MMA, its only to show her for non-sexual purposes if that is at all possible thus leaving only say doctors and caretakers accessing my farooj.
Oh look, more subjectivity! and no, we are not left with 'childless sex', it was never there in the first place.

Perhaps your right. Kids is the main reason for marriage ONLY in the sense of establishing inheritance and legal support as suggested by Johan otherwise whats the difference? But I do think there is significance in making official who you've deemed as marriage material of which starting a family may well be the primary aspect. I agree with you in the sense that a marriage benefits children more than it benefits a couple.
Have you analysed Johan's opinions in any way? You consider them solid? Like I've been saying all along there are no such strange scenarios involved. Almost marriage but not quite, only marriage if kids, childless sex endorsed by quran! Holding hands! Shock horror full dowry! It's absurd.

No but if it becomes the case that they just can't live together because sexually they are completely incompatible if such a thing is possible (I go by what I have heard in this case) then surely it is important to establish that compatibility and not have surprises on the night of the wedding.
Lol. This is descending into complete ridiculousness. There is NO complete anything in EITHER case. That's why there is a divorce. You think you're reasonably compatible enough for marriage you marry. Once you marry, then you check out everything thoroughly taking whatever time you need while living together for however long. Doesn't work out at any point you divorce. Regardless of children no children. Instead of absurd situations like marriage is only for kids which doesn't happen anywhere and is completely illogical; checking sexual compatibility which changes with experience or time anyways; 'trial runs' doing exactly the same thing as a 'married' couple before we get a piece of paper or say 'henceforth this is real'; etc etc.

Everyone can be deceptive whether in or out of marriage. The goal is to be competent enough to avoid being deceived. one needs to recognise when someone is just after sex, money or whatever so that one does not get hurt or used. This is regardless of whether it is within marriage or out of it.
yeah and we need trial runs with sex to figure out the deception. Living with them exactly like a married couple is saving us all from hurt and being used. Cunning plan, really.

No I meant I liked your comment on how having something righteous to say is not a euphemism. The women in that verse may not be MMA. IF we are gonna assume that they are, then I won't meet her in secret when my intention is other than to discuss righteous matters. Should we choose to talk about music, or holidays or games or films, then i'l make sure that someone knows where I am. Similarly with sexual activity. I'l make sure that I am not meeting her secretly.
make sure you choose a non secretive place for the non secretive sex too.

[Mazhar]

Salam Mazhar

May I ask where this is going?
Will it go anywhere other than that Ma Malekat Aymunkum (shortened to MMA) will be translated to those whom your oaths possess or those whom you possess via oaths?

You have yet to answer

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?

Am I to assume that you currently have no theory with regards to this?

edit

Again look what you said. Do they connote one and the same thing?

Your question was answered. Even Noon replied it. Go to previous pages. "allowing access to ones private parts" and "showing private parts to a medical doctor for check up for treatment for the ailment" are propositions poles apart, if you reflect a little.

[uq]

Peace nimnimak_11,

I can appreciate your argument that the act of sex, per se, is not evil, but that the circumstances in which it occurs render it as such.

I would like to address your argument with 2 points

1. In my studies of the Quran, I have found sex outside marriage to be explicitly prohibited as per 1732 which precludes sex outside marriage because zinaa can only mean performing sex outside marriage, invariably.

2. Most of us can appreciate that legalizing sex outside marriage serves the interests of our lustful reproductive drive which is inherent to our physiology it is this very point about which we should be extremely cautious, for this will mar our logical judgments and present itself as a tremendous bias when making an inference. In other words, when it comes to sex, we don't think with our minds, we think with our hormones. Of this we must be extremely cautious.

Peace

[nimnimak_11]

Peace Nadia

I don't want it to get circular so to prevent this, i've put *s next to questions that have not been discussed yet.

Ok this caught my attention

To say well, we have to twist and turn and read things into things because there are no explicit rules on a similar situation...should be a clue. There aren't any. Before you once again run with the 'but, but almost 100%!!'...bear in mind this is for all generations after the quran and that there is nothing anywhere that says have sex but don't have children within or without a marriage.

I'l do a comparison between our posts. I'l do my best to keep it unbiased please tell me where i've twisted things to draw my preferred interpretation. Where i've refuted your POV without credible reason. At which point I am I denying overwhelming evidence so that if I am, It could be pin pointed accurately and I could come to be aware of it.

The phrase Ungaurd the private parts

My POV Let's take it literally. Could it encompass show it to the doctor for assessment? Allow the surgeon to operate on it? Look after it's well being? Expose it? Engage in sex with them? It encompasses all these things. So when it is claimed that one can ungaurd their private parts, it does mean that one can engage in sex SO LONG AS there are no other restrictions in place (I will come onto restrictions furhter on). Is this any different to saying by unguarding your private parts you are free to engage in all activities that is not entailed/implies by the action of guarding your private parts. This includes sex PROVIDED that there are no other restrictions. Purely on this last statement, is my reasoning wrong*1

Ok so that's the phrase part done. Now let's look at the zawj and MMA part of verse 236

Your POV (correct me if I'm wrong
In the context of 235-6, MMA and zawj are the same. MMA is a further description of what it is to be a zawj.
Ok fine My question So are you saying that we can only ungaurd our private parts to one category of MMA (zawj)? So Doctors, caretakers and so on are excluded?*2

My POV on this 235-6 is making a distinction between zawj and MMA. My reason can be illustrated like this Commissioner Gordon gives me some batrangs. He also gives me a warning "You can't give these batrangs to anyone except Bruce Wayne OR Batman. Now if I knew that Batman was Bruce, then i'd be like fine. I see what your trying to do there Gordon. You want me to give him the batrangs either when he is in Batman mode or when he is in civilian mode. Wouldn't I already know this?! Hence why clarify Gordon? Anyways. Ok i'l do that. Well done for such outstanding clarification Gordon! BUT what happens when there is more than one Batman?!, like there is more than one MMA? Shouldn't Gordon just say Bruce Wayne or shouldn't he say the Batman that is Bruce Wayne?*3.

Ok next part
423-25
Within the list of prohibited women are the muhsinat

Your POV The muhsinat in 424 do not denote all muhsinat women. Thus not all muhsinat women are prohibited.
My question What makes you think that? Your answer After listing who is prohibited, 424 then says that "beyond this is permitted to you..." and then in 425 it says "muhsinat" rather than Muhsinat that is MMA. Thus implying that the muhsinat that occurs at 424 (which is specified as forbidden unless they are MMA) is not related to the muhsinat in 425.

My question What two different muhsinat meanings can we take to make this approach work? Your Answer Undecided. Keeping my options open. My Question Are there any possible available options from the root of muhsinat? Anything that makes it hypothetically possible for this distinction to work at all?*4

My POV The muhsinat in 424-25 are the same. my reason 425 is a direct continuation of 424 and so it makes more sense to accept that the two exact words being used in the same context, will mean exactly the same thing. Also from the Quran there is absolutely no sign/implication of there being different types of muhsinats. Furthermore 425 indicates that the fatayat are different to the muhsinat such that should one choose to marry them, they should ask the parents of the fatayat for permission whilst this is not needed in the case of the muhsinat. Thus surely there is a relation between the meaning of the terms mushinat and fatayat.

We are also given a further clue in 425 that the fatayat become muhsin after marriage. What could muhsin mean here? Do they become Married/Chaste/Protected/Fortified/Independent after getting married? Ok main question. What's wrong with my understanding of muhsinat as independent?*5

Next part
2237 And if you divorce them before tamasshunna, but you have already set the dowry for them; then you must give half of what you have agreed..."
It'd be absurd to say that one can't touch at all. So it has to be asked how much/what type of touch are we talking about here. Your POV No sexual touching allowed. Your reasons

2237 has nothing to do with sex using condoms.

My comment Part of what it is talking about is touch. The aim is to determine what that means.
Your other reason
You're the one who's insisting on a miracle touch that guarantees a child and a similarly miracle touch that doesn't. This is not only absurd but pure insertion on your part.

My comment No I'm saying if he keeps his pants on, then there is a guarantee that there will be no pregnancy. This is neither miraculous or impossible to achieve. Similarly if they fail to keep their pants on and become one via the front of one another, there is a chance (not a miracle guarantee touch) that this may lead to a pregnancy. Which part of my comment/understanding here is as you've put it "ridiculous"?*6

My POV On what touch in 2237 means.
We have 4 options 1) Any physical contact 2) non-penetrative sexual physical contact 3) Penetrative sexual physical contact 4) Sexual physical contact in general.
So I ask myself. How can I determine with reason what it means by touch. Why would it prohibit 1, 2, 3 or 4? I see no reason for 1. 4 Might lead to pregnancies. Is this a problem Quranically? I think so. 2230 talks of divorce only in the context of a marriage. One of the requirements of divorce is the waiting period for women to ensure that they are not pregnant. Thus pregnancy can be said to be implied as being exclusive to marriage. ALSO 347 appears to relate touch to pregnancy. Thus I conclude 4 is unacceptable purely because it can lead to pregnancies. But 2 does not. From all that I we have discussed which i have summarised above, what is there to make me think that non-penetrative sexual physical contact is impermissible? Could you point to verses that have such implicative force? *7

About 2237 you accused of pure insertion on my part for understanding touch to mean non-penetrative sexual contact. You took it to mean sexual contact. Why do you accuse me of pure insertion? What are you doing that is different? *8

Moving onto 2235

Here we are told not to make an appointment/promise to the women in secret unless we have something righteous to say.
You took this as implying don't have sex with the women. I took it as don't meet the women in secret unless you got something righteous to say. I had to defend why this verse is not an implication of sex is exclusive to marriage Thus I said I will never meet the women unless I have something righteous to discuss. Thus If I am to discuss movies, play games, engage in sex (anything that is other than discuss something righteous) then I will make sure that it is not in secret. Your response was to chuck a load of sarcasm my way. So I ask What is there in 2235 that implies sex is exclusive to marriage?

Finally, we discussed Zina
You gave your view and a couple of links, I gave mine. I defended my view that calling a couple who engage in sex without a marriage certificate as impractical and inhumane based on my 18 year old example. Your response read the links.

From *1 to *9 Please explain to me how I've defied overwhelming evidence? Because I sincerely believe that I have not at the moment. I really don't want to be of that nature. Part of my motivation for clarification is that I may well be defying good evidence. Primarily I am motivated because I do not think that I have effectively conveyed my POV.

Edits

Forgot to add

dear god. First, you're divorcing the woman...you stay away from anything sexual. Remember 434? Whether it's for kids or to make a damn point...you stay away from sex, miraculous touches or no.

Fair enough. If we can establish that that verse is only with regards to marriage, then yes. When it comes to divorce...forget any sexual activity. Not just the kind of sexual activity that leads to kids. Because the waiting period is no longer about ensuring that she is not pregnant.

[nimnimak_11]

Peace nimnimak_11,

I can appreciate your argument that the act of sex, per se, is not evil, but that the circumstances in which it occurs render it as such.

I would like to address your argument with 2 points

1. In my studies of the Quran, I have found sex outside marriage to be explicitly prohibited as per 1732 which precludes sex outside marriage because zinaa can only mean performing sex outside marriage, invariably.

2. Most of us can appreciate that legalizing sex outside marriage serves the interests of our lustful reproductive drive which is inherent to our physiology it is this very point about which we should be extremely cautious, for this will mar our logical judgments and present itself as a tremendous bias when making an inference. In other words, when it comes to sex, we don't think with our minds, we think with our hormones. Of this we must be extremely cautious.

Peace

Peace UQ

I cannot prove your theory of zina as wrong as it is a valid take as far as I am aware. However also valid is to take it as adultery where one engages in sex outside of their marriage. But if they are not in a marriage, then this is not adultery and IMO zina exclusively means adultery.

Part of my preference for understanding zina as not encompassing any meaning other than adultery is that it would lead to unclear answers regarding 434 (For example why did it say nisa rather than zawj in that instance if zawj are the exclusive category?) I mean look at 412. it made sure to use azwaj rather than nisa when it came to inheritance. Then look at 433 it says leave a share for the MMA just before progressing on to 434 using nisa rather than zawj. Surely this advice applies to more than just the zawj?

and why would it mention the MMA in 235-6 right next to the zawj when it could have seperated the 2 and suggested that with an MMA one can only unguard for unsexual reasons etc. especially given that MMAs are used in the context of whom one should marry 424-25

On the other hand verses such as 2237 and 2230 imply that one should not engage in sex. But a look at the notion of waiting periods and 347's usage of touch in comparison to the usage of touch in 2237 lead me to believe that acts that lead to pregnancy should be exclusive to marriage. Not all sexual acts lead to kids. So are the sexual acts that guarantee no pregnancy acceptable? IMO if you do not think it to be lewd or constitute as zina, then there is nothing else (as far as i have researched) that implies otherwise.

Edit

[nimnimak_11]

Salam Mazhar

Again look what you said. Do they connote one and the same thing?

Your right, what I should have said was Those whom your oaths possess or those who you possess via your oaths. I should have added your but I figured that would have been implicitly clear. My mistake.

Your question was answered. Even Noon replied it

I don't agree. Noon's reply was not addressed to me. I had not entered a discussion with Noon since I wasn't addressed.

You said

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

To which I eventually asked

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?

This remains my question to you. You have not answered this. Your direct reply to this was

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.

How is that an answer to the question I asked. How is that a continuation of our conversation?

So what do you take guard to mean in 235-6? Please show that it works.
Thanks.

[Mazhar]

Your right, what I should have said was Those whom your oaths possess or those who you possess via your oaths. I should have added your but I figured that would have been implicitly clear. My mistake.

Again these are two different propositions. The subject becomes different in these two propositions.

[nimnimak_11]

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

Salam Noon

If your understanding of Ma malekat aymunkum in 236? is it That which is in one's control, I would ask, how would you understand the occurrence of Ma Malekat aymunkum in 424 and 425?

[nimnimak_11]

Again these are two different propositions. The subject becomes different in these two propositions.

Essentially the same meaning is conveyed. Please clarify how different meanings can be conveyed from these two phrases. Also please answer the question you have not yet answered

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