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

savage_carrot

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.

According to your pov, where do you come up with we can't have sex with them if other restrictions are in place? What restrictions are these other than marriage restrictions? If you took sex as being restricted to marriage you'd have a point. You have to make up your mind, either unguard is only about sex or it can include non sexual in it. According to this, if the first...you have an issue. If the second, then there is another valid way of taking it which makes more sense according to the verses and overall summation of such. If you still insist on well, sure, can be non sexual but that isn't stopping anyone from doing their MMA's, read 2431 again.

Which category amongst everyone there you know 100% you can sex with? The answer is spouses. If you say could be MMA as well...what is the difference between this verse and the one you keep touting allows us to have sex with MMA's? We could choose any one from these categories to unguard and have sex with according to your pov. If we take it as guard refers to everyone else except spouses and MMA's...on what basis? One verse? There's another verse that gives all categories inclusive of spouses and MMA's we can relax our guard with. No, you say...that refers to only adornment. We can only relax our adornment with these categories, we must guard farooj regardless from these people? Then apparently no sex with spouses or MMA. Unless then you again read the highly touted verse and insist these MMA must be 'sexual ones'. Different from spouses but sexual based on? That's right, nothing.

Look at 2458...? What, the MMA can't even see us in our times of privacy without permission? Which MMA are these? Surely not the ones we can have sex with? But let's make them our MMA's then we can do it, oh wait. What's the explanation? You have sexual oaths with only some MMA and they become different MMA's that don't require permission thus the verse doesn't apply to our MMA?

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
It's always better to keep options open than to become an example of 426-7. It doesn't mention only parents in case of fatayat, it mentions people/family and that they are MMA.This doesn't mean that muhisnat don't have people/family either. Whether we take it as we don't need permission or that it's only mentioned in case of fatayat because we are marrying them in that verse as opposed to the muhsinat...has no bearing on sex before marriage. Which brings me to...whatever the meanings we take, it has nothing to do with sex before marriage in any case. It's talking about marriage, marriage restrictions, permissibility, procedures regarding the previous. Nothing about 'make them mma' then have sex before marriage. It's a red herring that apparently needs to be there for your pov of 'making them mma' then sex before marriage.

For clear emphasis Whether you make them an MMA or not before marriage has nothing to do with sex before marriage. Whether they are already MMA before marriage or you make them MMA before marriage has nothing to do with sex before marriage. Whether we have to make them MMA or not before marriage has nothing to do with sex before marriage.

First can we have sex with an MMA? Which incidentally has nothing to do with making them MMA or them being MMA before marriage again. Where are the restrictions that we can't have sex with an MMA? Where are the restrictions that you can't have sex with anyone you want to have sex with? Like the previous "Is there any verse that suggests the guarding of chastity as necessary?"!! They guard their farooj other than their spouses/MMA...vindication! sex with MMA's! Opening up the gates for anyone who wants to have sex with anyone right up. Not marriage...sex. Just 'make them' MMA. Why can't we make our family/relatives MMA again? "We have sexual marriage restrictions" that's why. The obvious and logical issues created and the solution to this is staring most people right in their faces. Not some however. Some want it to be within 'reasonable' and entirely subjective boundaries...which are? Girlfriends and boyfriends apparently because heaven forfend the guy can't get it up on the marriage night.

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
Quote

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
Quote

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

So from asking about different categories of 'touching' which would make clear that there are non sexual and sexual 'touches'...we're still on keeping one's pants on and apparently still doing everything else. Can you not differentiate between sexual and non sexual? Yes, one of the reasons is to see that they aren't pregnant, that doesn't mean you can still have 'special sexual touches' with them of any kind. It's a divorce, not a joke. Abandon them in the bed chamber means what? Do everything except penetrative sex potentially leading to kids? What type of reasoning is this? What if we use sex toys? What if turkey basters are involved, brushing against them while coincidentally entering the room together is an omg full dowry situation... That's the type of reasoning being applied.

And hell yes, I accused you for using absurd reasoning and insertions of miraculous sex that can guarantee a child and similarly one that doesn't. Your reasoning is...if I can do everything else but not sex that leads to children, I'm good. So you bring up different sexual and non sexual touches to 'show' that it's all murky there is no difference unless it's sex that leads to 'children guaranteed'...thus I can use condoms and still have sex. There is a difference between sexual and non sexual 'touches'...the former can include sex that can lead to children amongst other sexual acts/touches.Here is where some rear their heads up with well, it can ONLY mean penetrative vaginal sex which will 'guarantee' a child...and where most everyone will stare in fascination at the logic and the lack of awareness of how penetrative unprotected vaginal sex in terms of resulting in children actually goes down in the world we live in. Or penetrative protected sex for that matter. Or where people can get away with oral sex and not have to pay full dowry. Full dowry is only for the children, care to prove that? That's how justice is done apparently in the quran according to your pov. Keeping in mind that there is no punishment or legal recourse for having a child while unmarried and dumping the trial wife. Only if you get married will you face the brunt inclusive of dowry. Why would anyone other than a few idealists believing in marriage being a statement of commitment (and apparently only for kids which doesn't happen anywhere neither is there any proof for this in the quran) get married when he can do the same without a marriage and keep or dump the kids as he so chooses? There is no answer to this and never will be.

Pregnancy implied as exlusive to marriage? Hallelujah. Pregnancy involves sex. There is NO mention of childless sex ANYWHERE. The waiting periods are for ALL of us regardless of what we think it's for and we think we should do. What does that imply? Let me state it rather than expect a logical answer Sex within marriage, regardless of pregnancy or no. Sexual touches within a marriage, regardless of pregnancy or no.

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.

Still talking about the 18 year old example without reading the links where it is clearly addressed. Your defense involving 'I'll let everyone know publicly explicitly or implicitly whenever I'm having sex with my gf' is supposed to be taken seriously apparently. The reasoning behind this being I'm going to be doing the 'right thing' by announcing my sexual exploits and never meeting in privacy/secrecy unless to discuss something 'righteous'. Using the logic given above, apparently playing games and discussing movies must only ever be done in public and never in secret. What the? Why on earth would anyone only meet in private/secret to discuss something righteous? Everything is public/open since it's contrasted to that in many verses. So even if you did meet in private, it would be something righteous that wouldn't be an issue if it came to light. That is, righteous in public AND in private. What is unrighteous in this context? What are people doing in private that is unrighteous? If living with them exactly like a married couple is permissible, then what is freaking left for them to do which is unrighteous in private?

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.
'If we can establish'? Right. Here we have a couple living together sharing the bedchamber and in case we fear shiqaqa, we are told to mediate and they can reconcile or not. Who else can it be in this scenario? Trial spouses? How many verses do you want to turn around into something else?

My mistake in all of this was to assume there was some meat to this which I'm not getting. That, and my interest in MMA. My bad. It is a poorly conceived notion at best which isn't even well researched or meshing with any signs in our horizons.

nimnimak_11

I've like made in bold fonts to catch your attention and link things
You said

You have to make up your mind, either unguard is only about sex or it can include non sexual in it. According to this, if the first...you have an issue

If the second, then there is another valid way of taking it which makes more sense according to the verses and overall summation of such

How did you get to this?! Is it not obvious?! My last post to you said right at the beginning
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.

Which part of "it encompasses all these things" is unclear?

where do you come up with we can't have sex with them if other restrictions are in place?

It's obvious that when there are restrictions in place, you follow them! My point is ungaurd private parts encompasses all things. But if there are restrictions elsewhere, then this takes away from all the things possible FOR EXAMPLE if anal constitutes lewdness, then it is obviously a restriction on the unguarding of one's private parts. If the categories of unguarding is exclusive to the MMA and ZAWJ then there is another restriction in place. I'VE DISCUSSED AND ACCEPTED THREE RESTRICTIONS 1) zawj+mma only allowed to be ungaurded. 2) Can't constitute fahisha or zina 3) Can't lead to kids as implied by 2237+347.....WHAT OTHER RESTRICTIONS ARE THERE?!

Which category amongst everyone there you know 100% you can sex with? The answer is spouses. If you say could be MMA as well...what is the difference between this verse and the one you keep touting allows us to have sex with MMA's?

We can only relax our adornment with these categories, we must guard farooj regardless from these people? Then apparently no sex with spouses or MMA.

Oh my GOD!
What restricts me from ungaurding my private parts to the people in 2431....235-6 restricts me from unguarding my privates to all of them except the zawj or MMA.

If we take it as guard refers to everyone else except spouses and MMA's...on what basis? One verse?

YOU WANT ME TO GIVE YOU ONE VERSE THAT SAYS "Guard refers to everyone else except spouses and MMAs", here you go
235-6 235 And they keep covered their private parts.
236 Except around their mates, or those who are maintained by their oaths, they are free from blame.
they guard private parts except around the zawj or MMA... So they unguard only to their zawj or MMA.

Unless then you again read the highly touted verse and insist these MMA must be 'sexual ones'. Different from spouses but sexual based on? That's right, nothing.

Ok so your saying they are not sexual. Based on what?....I really would like to know!!
Here is what i'm basing it on 423-24 You can't marry the muhsinat except that they be MMA. If you can't marry the muhsinat marry the fatayat MMA. What's MMA here? Cleaners? servants? prisoners of war? Finaces or girlfriends?! I think the last two options are the best. Also 434 and the fact that it has used nisa rather than azwaaj implying this applies to more than just the zawj despite making sure to use azwaaj in 412

Look at 2458...? What, the MMA can't even see us in our times of privacy without permission? Which MMA are these? Surely not the ones we can have sex with? But let's make them our MMA's then we can do it, oh wait. What's the explanation? You have sexual oaths with only some MMA and they become different MMA's that don't require permission thus the verse doesn't apply to our MMA?

Do you think that there is only one category of MMA? Do you think the phrase Those whom your oaths possess can only denote one set of people? So we are told to have three times of privacy. Privacy for what? What's your understanding of that verse?

So from asking about different categories of 'touching' which would make clear that there are non sexual and sexual 'touches'...we're still on keeping one's pants on and apparently still doing everything else. Can you not differentiate between sexual and non sexual? Yes, one of the reasons is to see that they aren't pregnant, that doesn't mean you can still have 'special sexual touches' with them of any kind. It's a divorce, not a joke. Abandon them in the bed chamber means what? Do everything except penetrative sex potentially leading to kids? What type of reasoning is this? What if we use sex toys? What if turkey basters are involved, brushing against them while coincidentally entering the room together is an omg full dowry situation... That's the type of reasoning being applied.

And hell yes, I accused you for using absurd reasoning and insertions of miraculous sex that can guarantee a child and similarly one that doesn't. Your reasoning is...if I can do everything else but not sex that leads to children, I'm good. So you bring up different sexual and non sexual touches to 'show' that it's all murky there is no difference unless it's sex that leads to 'children guaranteed'...thus I can use condoms and still have sex. There is a difference between sexual and non sexual 'touches'...the former can include sex that can lead to children amongst other sexual acts/touches.Here is where some rear their heads up with well, it can ONLY mean penetrative vaginal sex which will 'guarantee' a child...and where most everyone will stare in fascination at the logic and the lack of awareness of how penetrative unprotected vaginal sex in terms of resulting in children actually goes down in the world we live in. Or penetrative protected sex for that matter. Or where people can get away with oral sex and not have to pay full dowry. Full dowry is only for the children, care to prove that? That's how justice is done apparently in the quran according to your pov. Keeping in mind that there is no punishment or legal recourse for having a child while unmarried and dumping the trial wife. Only if you get married will you face the brunt inclusive of dowry. Why would anyone other than a few idealists believing in marriage being a statement of commitment (and apparently only for kids which doesn't happen anywhere neither is there any proof for this in the quran) get married when he can do the same without a marriage and keep or dump the kids as he so chooses? There is no answer to this and never will be.

Pregnancy implied as exlusive to marriage? Hallelujah. Pregnancy involves sex. There is NO mention of childless sex ANYWHERE. The waiting periods are for ALL of us regardless of what we think it's for and we think we should do. What does that imply? Let me state it rather than expect a logical answer Sex within marriage, regardless of pregnancy or no. Sexual touches within a marriage, regardless of pregnancy or no.

Give me a verse that conveys to me that the touch in 2237 is sexual physical contact. 434 and abandon them in their beds you say? Ok why say Nisa rather than zawj? This implies more categories than just the zawj.

For clear emphasis Whether you make them an MMA or not before marriage has nothing to do with sex before marriage

Oh I'm sorry so what would you have me do with my muhsinat MMA when 235-6 allows me to unguard both sexually and unsexually?? What would have me understand 434 as? NO NISA ONLY MEANS ZAWJ!!!! Sure it does...the Quran magically forgot to specify even though at 412 it never failed to make the azwaaj explicit. Let's just assume it means zawj. Can't do that. Gotta work with reason and evidence. Not assumptions with weak backing.

First can we have sex with an MMA?

Yes

Which incidentally has nothing to do with making them MMA or them being MMA before marriage again.

423-25?! If I can't marry the muhsinat that are MMA I should marry the fatayat that are MMA. I think this has got plenty of implicative force that you marry an MMA.

Where are the restrictions that we can't have sex with an MMA?

There are none!

Where are the restrictions that you can't have sex with anyone you want to have sex with? Like the previous "Is there any verse that suggests the guarding of chastity as necessary?"!! They guard their farooj other than their spouses/MMA...vindication! sex with MMA's! Opening up the gates for anyone

Fahisha. I can't sleep with my aunt it's fahisha. Cant' have sex outside of my marriage. It's zina. So i can't just bed anyone. Thus we have sexual restrictions as well as marriage restrictions.

If we can establish'? Right. Here we have a couple living together sharing the bedchamber and in case we fear shiqaqa, we are told to mediate and they can reconcile or not. Who else can it be in this scenario? Trial spouses? How many verses do you want to turn around into something else?

Interesting how its not in case we fear talaq. Interesting how it's nisa not azwaaj. Who else? Fiance's, girlfriends. These are the only two other possibles as well as zawj. Thus 3 categories. Which explains why it said nisa not the one category of zawj.

I guess some would just say noooo. It's zawj not nisa.
I don't know....Not everyone values the truth equally. Hopefully we can stick to the truth rather than our desires to believe something we want to believe...

Perhaps if you tired to write an article titled sex is exclusive to marriage, you'l come to know that it is not. I think that such an understanding is a "poorly conceived notion at best which isn't even well researched or meshing with any signs in our horizons."

modified I wrote a word in there by accident

savage_carrot

Which part of "it encompasses all these things" is unclear?
Perhaps the part where you insist that unguarding can mean sex ONLY when it comes to MMA and ZAWJ. Why? If it encompasses all these things why only these 2?

It's obvious that when there are restrictions in place, you follow them! My point is ungaurd private parts encompasses all things. But if there are restrictions elsewhere, then this takes away from all the things possible FOR EXAMPLE if anal constitutes lewdness, then it is obviously a restriction on the unguarding of one's private parts. If the categories of unguarding is exclusive to the MMA and ZAWJ then there is another restriction in place. I'VE DISCUSSED AND ACCEPTED THREE RESTRICTIONS 1) zawj+mma only allowed to be ungaurded. 2) Can't constitute fahisha or zina 3) Can't lead to kids as implied by 2237+347.....WHAT OTHER RESTRICTIONS ARE THERE?!

Oh my GOD!
What restricts me from ungaurding my private parts to the people in 2431....235-6 restricts me from unguarding my privates to all of them except the zawj or MMA.

YOU WANT ME TO GIVE YOU ONE VERSE THAT SAYS "Guard refers to everyone else except spouses and MMAs", here you go
235-6 235 And they keep covered their private parts.
236 Except around their mates, or those who are maintained by their oaths, they are free from blame.
they guard private parts except around the zawj or MMA... So they unguard only to their zawj or MMA.

Why don't we put everything YOU consider 'lewd' under the magic word fahisha and get on with life. These are what YOU MADE UP as restrictions. We don't come to fahisha with maybe it's this and maybe it's that making up imaginary restrictions and then refuse to budge. Why is it EXCLUSIVE to only MMA and ZAWJ? Is there something special in this verse that there isn't in the other? If zina is only adultery then the unmarried have no restrictions as long as they are mma which involves oaths of various different grammar tenses inclusive of 'I will now have sex with you I so solemnly swear'. The third is useless to even talk about.

Ok so your saying they are not sexual. Based on what?....I really would like to know!!
Here is what i'm basing it on 423-24 You can't marry the muhsinat except that they be MMA. If you can't marry the muhsinat marry the fatayat MMA. What's MMA here? Cleaners? servants? prisoners of war? Finaces or girlfriends?! I think the last two options are the best. Also 434 and the fact that it has used nisa rather than azwaaj implying this applies to more than just the zawj despite making sure to use azwaaj in 412
They can only be sexual in the category of spouse. Whether that means MMA = spouse or MMA= non sexual and spouse = sexual. Why are you basing it on marriage verses as I keep asking repeatedly? Stick to the sex, forget marriage...it's got nothing to do with your notion of sex before marriage. Why don't you tell us what this new theory of yours means regarding nisa rather than azwaaj? Trial wives?

Do you think that there is only one category of MMA? Do you think the phrase Those whom your oaths possess can only denote one set of people? So we are told to have three times of privacy. Privacy for what? What's your understanding of that verse?
I asked you first with no real answer. Based on this verse who is the category of MMA that are immune to the restriction? Where can we find the term for that subset of MMA? I look forward to your 'implications' of what this term is and what category they fall in within MMA and where it's mentioned.

Give me a verse that conveys to me that the touch in 2237 is sexual physical contact. 434 and abandon them in their beds you say? Ok why say Nisa rather than zawj? This implies more categories than just the zawj.
Trial wives it is then, from the nisa no less, not even mma. Go on and tell us now that they don't even need to be mma. I don't need to give you a verse to understand the obvious. If you don't think it's sexual physical contact, then don't touch them and pay half dowry. Touch them any which way and pay full.

Oh I'm sorry so what would you have me do with my muhsinat MMA when 235-6 allows me to unguard both sexually and unsexually?? What would have me understand 434 as? NO NISA ONLY MEANS ZAWJ!!!! Sure it does...the Quran magically forgot to specify even though at 412 it never failed to make the azwaaj explicit. Let's just assume it means zawj. Can't do that. Gotta work with reason and evidence. Not assumptions with weak backing.
Shoddy analysis. Where is it telling you that any man can do this to any woman? Which category do we know for sure ticks the boxes of living together and having sex? In your opinion it can be anyone from the nisa apparently...cool. Just don't expect anyone to take that seriously unless you can prove it.

423-25?! If I can't marry the muhsinat that are MMA I should marry the fatayat that are MMA. I think this has got plenty of implicative force that you marry an MMA.
This is what happens when you quote incorrectly =
First can we have sex with an MMA? Which incidentally has nothing to do with making them MMA or them being MMA before marriage again.

There are none!
It was rhetorical.

Fahisha. I can't sleep with my aunt it's fahisha. Cant' have sex outside of my marriage. It's zina. So i can't just bed anyone. Thus we have sexual restrictions as well as marriage restrictions.
Fahisha = subjective. Unless you can prove what fahisha is and why and what it includes conclusively from the quran, stop throwing it around like a magic word. And zina isn't exclusive to marriage.

Interesting how its not in case we fear talaq. Interesting how it's nisa not azwaaj. Who else? Fiance's, girlfriends. These are the only two other possibles as well as zawj. Thus 3 categories. Which explains why it said nisa not the one category of zawj.

I guess some would just say noooo. It's zawj not nisa.
I don't know....Not everyone values the truth equally. Hopefully we can stick to the truth rather than our desires to believe something we want to believe...

Perhaps if you tired to write an article titled sex is exclusive to marriage, you'l come to know that it is not. I think that such an understanding is a "poorly conceived notion at best which isn't even well researched or meshing with any signs in our horizons."

modified I wrote a word in there by accident

Brilliant analysis again, bravo. There is fear of shiqaqa before there is talaq. Gf's and fiancees are now both similar sexual mma's? What about my babysitter? I may want to marry her too, who knows...She's not my girlfriend or my fiancee yet because I'm checking whether she can be my girlfriend or fiancee but it's all inclusive in the sexual mma sub category so I'm set. Awesome comeback too.

Essentially

-Open up the gates to sex with mma by choosing one verse and dismissing the rest
-Realising that the gates have opened up, we must direct the flow of sexual traffic through 'socially accepted' lanes using the magic word fahisha
-More arbitrary restrictions have to be made up because children outside marriage are a danger to society and not a 'socially accepted' lane
-There are no laws regarding these children and their parents given however
-References to marriage verses abound even though sex outside marriage is not mentioned other than in less than glowing terms
-Reasoning behind using marriage verses because it's sex before marriage for marriage even if we don't marry we have to look at categories we can marry
-A different sexual sub category of mma from within mma has now been magically born. It hides from the world at large and exists only in some places where we need magic glasses to see it.
-In these magic places, we cannot differentiate between sexual and non sexual touches either, neither do we need to because we have guaranteed sex for children and for no children.
-This special sex is also a law in this magic land. This law is an implicit law further.
-If the word nisa is being used in a verse regardless of what for, accuse the other of making up only one category while simultaneously adding 2 made up categories as well
-We don't even need the mma to open up the gates of sex now, nisa includes all
-These nisa are trial wives doing everything a real wife does but if she can do it better than the other trial wives, she'll be a real wife with a dowry to her name finally.
-The trial wife will enjoy her new found success doing the same things she did before but with a new title
-Trial wives realise the necessity of such because they understand the need to know everything about the marriage before the actual marriage so that they don't marry and get stuck for life
-Oh wait, trial wives offer their apologies since it isn't for life

nimnimak_11

Perhaps the part where you insist that unguarding can mean sex ONLY when it comes to MMA and ZAWJ. Why? If it encompasses all these things why only these 2?

No that's not my understanding. I've said it in the summary. MMA can denote many things. Unguarding our private parts to them encompasses everything from allowing a surgeon to operate on it, to engaging in sex. 235-6 establishes this. I'm not saying that 235-6 is only focused on the sort of MMA that you can engage in sex with. I'm saying it covers all MMAs ranging from doctors to fiances.

Why don't we put everything YOU consider 'lewd' under the magic word fahisha and get on with life.

These are what YOU MADE UP as restrictions.

Are you saying fahisha is not a restriction? Because I said fahisha is a restriction and then you accused me of making up restrictions.

We don't come to fahisha with maybe it's this and maybe it's that making up imaginary restrictions and then refuse to budge.

No we look at the examples of the Quran, we use our aql and intuitions about what is fahisha and apply them. For example by doing this we come to realise that sexual harassment is wrong. Or once married, certain sexual activities are just plain lewd this in turn restricts sexual activities as well as restrict with whom we can have sexual activities with.

Why is it EXCLUSIVE to only MMA and ZAWJ? Is there something special in this verse that there isn't in the other?

Why is it exclusive? When it says tell the believing men to guard their private parts, that means men guard your private parts and then it singles out the zawj and MMA using the word except thereby meaning that we guard to all except zawj and MMA. Ok how does that not establish exclusivity?

If zina is only adultery then the unmarried have no restrictions as long as they are mma which involves oaths of various different grammar tenses inclusive of 'I will now have sex with you I so solemnly swear'. The third is useless to even talk about.

AGAIN...What about FAHISHA? Isn't that a restriction on both the married and the unmarried?
Ok just look at this
Me Ok so your saying they are not sexual. Based on what?....I really would like to know!!
Here is what i'm basing it on 423-24 You can't marry the muhsinat except that they be MMA. If you can't marry the muhsinat marry the fatayat MMA. What's MMA here? Cleaners? servants? prisoners of war? Finaces or girlfriends?! I think the last two options are the best. Also 434 and the fact that it has used nisa rather than azwaaj implying this applies to more than just the zawj despite making sure to use azwaaj in 412
I answered your question and told you what i've based it on and asked you what you based it on this is what you replied

They can only be sexual in the category of spouse. Whether that means MMA = spouse or MMA= non sexual and spouse = sexual.

Whats this based on? I gave you verses explanations for the verses. Please do the same. Here just list the verses that convey sex is exclusive to marriage.

Why are you basing it on marriage verses as I keep asking repeatedly? Stick to the sex, forget marriage...it's got nothing
to do with your notion of sex before marriage.

Look at the above in italics. You marry an MMA fatayat and you marry a muhsinat fatayat. This implies that the MMA are fiances or girlfirends. That is why I have pointed to verses 424-25.
If you disagree, please tell me why and what you understand the MMA to mean here.

Why don't you tell us what this new theory of yours means regarding nisa rather than azwaaj? Trial wives?

Trial wives? No as i have said before girlfriends and fiances.

I asked you first with no real answer. Based on this verse who is the category of MMA that are immune to the restriction? Where can we find the term for that subset of MMA? I look forward to your 'implications' of what this term is and what category they fall in within MMA and where it's mentioned.

Ok you asked me first. Fair enough here is my answer regarding 2458

I'm trying to decide between two options
Those who have not yet reached puberty and the MMA are said to ask for permission thrice. Something must probably link these MMAs to children. So MMA here could either be nannies/caretakers or children that one is looking after.

That is my understanding. In case you go on to ask So you can ungaurd your private parts to nannies or children I must say no, because that is fahisha.
You directed this verse at me as some kinda proof for the exclusivity of sex in marriage. Thus you must have an understanding. So please give me your understanding of 2458 so that I may assess whether it conveys that sex is exclusive to marriage.

Shoddy analysis. Where is it telling you that any man can do this to any woman? Which category do we know for sure ticks the boxes of living together and having sex? In your opinion it can be anyone from the nisa apparently...cool. Just don't expect anyone to take that seriously unless you can prove it.

I don't. I back up my points with proof and reason rather than say I keep my options open OR....thats just obvious.

I said to you that the usage of Nisa in 434 conveys that the instructions in the verse are applicable to more than one category of women. Not that it applies to all women. Somehow you've misread my post. Thus what categories of nisa can we sleep with....the zawj and the MMA (In particular the subsets of fiance and girlfriends as all else would be fahisha).

Fahisha = subjective. Unless you can prove what fahisha is and why and what it includes conclusively from the quran, stop throwing it around like a magic word

I've already already explained this. Fahisha= lewdness. The term is self-explanatory. Just like the term transgression is self-explanatory. Not a magic word.

-Open up the gates to sex with mma by choosing one verse and dismissing the rest

Seriously?! Lets see whos randomly dismissing things.
I'l be more objective. Essentially you've not been clear on

Who are the MMA in 424-25? Are they not girlfriends or fiances? I've addressed this. You haven't
Who are the muhsinat and fatayat in 424-25? (your answer I like to keep my options open) I've addressed this
Who are the MMA at 236? I said they are anyone whom your oaths possess. I'm not sure whether you think they are essentially your spouse or they also include doctors, caretakers and so on. Please clarify.
You agreed that unguard private parts at 235-6 entails both sexual and non-sexual activity. Yet you have not fully defended why we are not allowed sexual activity with the MMA. You said because this means we could bed our fathers if they are MMA. I then said no that would be fahisha and we are restricted from doing what is fahisha thus whilst our fathers could be MMA (our doctor for example) we cannot engage in sexual activity with them as that is fahisha. Got anything more to add to this? Verses?
You haven't addressed why the muhsinat (the recommended category for marriage) are prohibited for marriage unless they be MMA. I can only think of one reason as to why they would have to be MMA. To marry someone you've not dated or is not your fiance is reckless. Please address this. Do you think just going to someone's house and proposing is a good move? Should one's potential spouse not be assessed as to the best degree? Or should we refrain from this because having a trial is unacceptable?
What should we understand by touch in 2237? No physical touch at all? No sexual touch at all? Please explain your reasons for your answer. My answer was Touch here refers to any act of touch that leads to pregnancy (in other other words the penetration of sperm into the vagina, whether this be with, or without sexual acitivity) this is suggested by 347 and the waiting periods that are all about ensuring no pregnancies. THUS THIS IMPLIES THAT PREGNANCY IS EXCLUSIVE TO MARRIAGE. NOT SEXUAL ACTIVITY.

If you have questions, i'd be happy to respond. Just put them in like 1) 2) 3) format. Cut out the excess and un-necessary sarcasm. Back your POVs with Quranic verses then I can understand your POVs and address them. Also please answer the questions like one by one. I'l do the same if you number your points and questions. That way its easier to compare and easier to understand one another.

Peace

Recluse

Zina is haram, case closed.

nimnimak_11

Zina is haram, case closed.

Agreed. Case closed on adultery.

uq

Peace nimnimak_11,

Your argument does follow a logical course and you have made some acute observations.

A few points

Just as there is a possibility of zinaa being understood as adultery and not just fornication, the word nisaa' can also mean wives as well as women, see an Arabic dictionary for verification.
In support of point 1, we read in 2236 that the nisaa' can be divorced, how does one divorce a woman if she is not married to the man? Hence, nisaa' can also mean wives.
In 2237, 3uqdatu 'n-nikaa7 (the contract of marriage) is mentioned in reference to nisaa', hence, nisaa' can also mean wives.

How do you reconcile the above?

uq

Unrelated to this topic, I would like to remind dear members that we are a priveliged community. We have among us the word of God, which we are at liberty to discuss with logic and with freedom from any oppresive centralised authority.

The topic discussed under this thread is a good demonstration of our freedom which would otherwise be suppressed if it occured under other organised religions.

Perhaps, along with Muhammad's generation of believers, we can be seen as the pioneers of Quranic study and research.

Truly a blessing from God.

nimnimak_11

Peace uq

Just as there is a possibility of zinaa being understood as adultery and not just fornication, the word nisaa' can also mean wives as well as women, see an Arabic dictionary for verification.

In support of point 1, we read in 2236 that the nisaa' can be divorced, how does one divorce a woman if she is not married to the man? Hence, nisaa' can also mean wives.

I do believe talagh is exclusive to marriage thus I agree.

In 2237, 3uqdatu 'n-nikaa7 (the contract of marriage) is mentioned in reference to nisaa', hence, nisaa' can also mean wives.

How do you reconcile the above?

I completely agree with all of the above. Nisa is at times used in the Quran to exclusively denote zawj as suggested by the above.
My uncertainty is whether the usage of nisa in 434 exclusively denotes the zawj
434 The men are to support the women with what God has bestowed upon them over one another and for what they spend of their money. The upright females are dutiful; keeping private the personal matters for what God keeps watch over. As for those females from whom you fear desertion, then you shall advise them, and abandon them in the bedchamber, and separate from them. If they respond to you, then do not seek a way over them; God is Most High, Great.
435 And if you fear opposition between them, then send a judge from his family and a judge from her family. If they want to reconcile, then God will bring them together. God is Knowledgeable, Expert.

From these verses, how can we grasp whether the nisa used is exclusively denoting the zawj? How do we know that it is not also denoting the muhsinat MMA or the fatayat MMA for example? Is there anything that can give us a clue or implication elsewhere in the Quran?

nimnimak_11

Unrelated to this topic, I would like to remind dear members that we are a priveliged community. We have among us the word of God, which we are at liberty to discuss with logic and with freedom from any oppresive centralised authority.

The topic discussed under this thread is a good demonstration of our freedom which would otherwise be suppressed if it occured under other organised religions.

Perhaps, along with Muhammad's generation of believers, we can be seen as the pioneers of Quranic study and research.

Truly a blessing from God.

thank you for this reminder uq.
If opposite views are not heard, then our beliefs become dead dogmas (as put by one famous philosopher). The more dogmatic our beliefs, the more blind we are to the truth. By hearing opposing views and addressing them, we further re-affirm our true beliefs and prevent them from becoming dead dogams.

savage_carrot

Who are the MMA in 424-25? Are they not girlfriends or fiances? I've addressed this. You haven't
Who are the muhsinat and fatayat in 424-25? (your answer I like to keep my options open) I've addressed this
Who are the MMA at 236? I said they are anyone whom your oaths possess. I'm not sure whether you think they are essentially your spouse or they also include doctors, caretakers and so on. Please clarify.
You agreed that unguard private parts at 235-6 entails both sexual and non-sexual activity. Yet you have not fully defended why we are not allowed sexual activity with the MMA. You said because this means we could bed our fathers if they are MMA. I then said no that would be fahisha and we are restricted from doing what is fahisha thus whilst our fathers could be MMA (our doctor for example) we cannot engage in sexual activity with them as that is fahisha. Got anything more to add to this? Verses?
You haven't addressed why the muhsinat (the recommended category for marriage) are prohibited for marriage unless they be MMA. I can only think of one reason as to why they would have to be MMA. To marry someone you've not dated or is not your fiance is reckless. Please address this. Do you think just going to someone's house and proposing is a good move? Should one's potential spouse not be assessed as to the best degree? Or should we refrain from this because having a trial is unacceptable?
What should we understand by touch in 2237? No physical touch at all? No sexual touch at all? Please explain your reasons for your answer. My answer was Touch here refers to any act of touch that leads to pregnancy (in other other words the penetration of sperm into the vagina, whether this be with, or without sexual acitivity) this is suggested by 347 and the waiting periods that are all about ensuring no pregnancies. THUS THIS IMPLIES THAT PREGNANCY IS EXCLUSIVE TO MARRIAGE. NOT SEXUAL ACTIVITY.
You keep taking marriage verses ignoring the fact that they have nothing to do with sex outside marriage. It's about marriage.
Why do we need to know who the mushinat or fatayat are in 424-25 which is talking about marriage when you claim we can have sex with mma's based on a different verse. Stick to whether we can based on the latter. If there is no other explanation there other than sex with mma's, we still don't need marriage verses.
If 236 are anyone whom our oaths possess then where are you finding the sexual subset within MMA? Where does 236 tell you only sex with the sexual subset within MMA? Where is the verse you are basing this sexual subset on?
repeated countless times, if two categories then only one can include sexual. If both include sexual without any marriage restrictions on sex, fahisha isn't saving it, everything opens up along with the babysitter and the gardener and the communities that believe sex with anyone long as they are mma is okay. I can say sex with girlfriends is a fahisha according to 1732 and you'd have to prove zina is only for the married. Is there a verse that says so?
I'm cool with the choice of someone marrying without dating, I'm also cool with them talking to each other before marriage etc etc. There are countless marriages that have gone on and still do where no one has sex before marriage and guess what? They are still together and content as far as married people can be. What I find amazingly uncool is the trial wife concept, this isn't dating by going to a movie or knowing one another over a dinner table...this is the exact same thing as a marriage without the marriage. This is an obvious absurdity to the concept of marriage.
Here we go again. If it's just touch, don't touch them any which way, if it's sexual, don't touch them sexually. If someone can't differentiate between sexual and non sexual, don't touch them any which way. To say that it HAS to be penetrative vaginal sex where the man has deposited sperm inside the vaginal canal and ONLY what it means based on having waiting periods...then once again open up the gates to absurd situations where a man can do anything inclusive of sex without a condom and pulling out at the last minute and getting away with it. 423 now becomes a joke, and dakhala is long as you didn't have a kid with the woman, you can marry her daughter. When the very word means entry/admittance!

Noon_waalqalami

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?

Salaam nimnimak_11,

what possess their right hands -- that in ones grasp/means/wherewithal which includes those things in their control from mental capacity, resources, financial, etc.

235 and the ones who they of their private parts guardians
236 only/except onto their spouses or what possess their right hands/means/wherewithal so indeed they not blameworthy

43 and if you fear that not you will be able to do justice in the orphans so marry what choice to you from al-nisa/women twos and three and four so if you fear that not you can do justice so one or what possess your right hands/means/wherewithal that lowest/minimum that not you oppress

423 prohibited onto you ...
and that you gathered between the two sisters only what hence passed indeed The God is Forgiving Merciful 424 w-al-mu--a-na-t from al-nisa/women only what possess your right hands/means/wherewithal

425 and from not is able from you awlan/height that marry al-mu--a-n-a-t (prior married; use context) the believers (feminine) so from what possess your right hands/means/wherewithal from fataytikumu your maidens (never married) the believers ...

nimnimak_11

Thank you so much for keeping it to like a numbered format. I strongly prefer this. Please let's continue this way.

You keep taking marriage verses ignoring the fact that they have nothing to do with sex outside marriage. It's about marriage.
424-25 are verses with regards to whom you can marry. Not about whom you can have sex with. I acknowledge this. My point is that at 424, the muhsinat are prohibited unless they are MMA and should we be unable to marry the muhsinat, then we marry the fatayat MMA. Given this the MMA here must refer to something like a girlfriend or a fiance. That is all I want to convey from this verse. This verse alone does not mean sex with MMA is permissible. My question to you 1) Is there a possible better understanding of MMA here? Hypothetically is there anything at all other than girlfriend or fiance?
Why do we need to know who the mushinat or fatayat are in 424-25 which is talking about marriage when you claim we can have sex with mma's based on a different verse. Stick to whether we can based on the latter. If there is no other explanation there other than sex with mma's, we still don't need marriage verses.
The best distinction between the muhsinat and the fatayat occurs at 424-25 and the clearest meaning is independent and dependent. There is absolutely no other possible alternative that could come close to working from what i've checked of the roots of these two arabic words. Given that muhsinat = independent and that the independent women are prohibited for marriage unless they are MMA, this further strengthens the notion that the MMA at 424-25 are either fiances, or girlfriends. So my question 2) If you disagree on this, what other alternative can we take as muhsinat and fatayat? My point is there is nothing else that works at all. Not even hypothetically.
If 236 are anyone whom our oaths possess then where are you finding the sexual subset within MMA? Where does tell you only sex with the sexual subset within MMA? Where is the verse you are basing this sexual subset on?
MMA are anyone whom our oaths possess. If the nature of the oaths that are in place encompass sexual activity, then you have sexual subset within MMA. There obviously are categories where oaths are in place that encompass sexual activity. Most sensible example (in order) are wives, finaces and girlfriends. I used 424-25 to convey that MMA are fiances or possibly girlfriends. This is not to say that these are the only meanings that MMA encompasses. Thus MMA can take the subset of sexual partners. Given that we can unguard our private parts to the MMA and that the MMA can take the form of a fiance or a girlfriend, then this entails sex with the MMA is permissible (provided there are no other furthter restrictions)
repeated countless times, if two categories then only one can include sexual. If both include sexual without any marriage restrictions on sex, fahisha isn't saving it, everything opens up along with the babysitter and the gardener and the communities that believe sex with anyone long as they are mma is okay. I can say sex with girlfriends is a fahisha according to 1732 and you'd have to prove zina is only for the married. Is there a verse that says so?
And I have responded at least twice that, no you can't bed any MMA. The nature of the oaths in place must be sexual. This is not the case with a gardener (you don't even show your farooj to the gardener). To a doctor you show him your farooj. To a surgeon you let him operate on it. To your girlfriend, fiance or wife you engage in sex with them. Your family can't be your girlfriends since that obviously constitutes lewdness.

Yes of course you can say that someone having sex outside of marriage is a fahisha or a zina, just as one can say that sex with one's girlfriend is not a fahisha or a zina. These understandings on these words are possible. The question is which is more reasonable and what are the implications of this with regards to the ungaurding of one's private parts to their muhsinat MMA. This would open the way to a discussion on zina and fahisha. My question to you 4) So how is fahisha not a restriction then?

I'm cool with the choice of someone marrying without dating, I'm also cool with them talking to each other before marriage etc etc. There are countless marriages that have gone on and still do where no one has sex before marriage and guess what? They are still together and content as far as married people can be. What I find amazingly uncool is the trial wife concept, this isn't dating by going to a movie or knowing one another over a dinner table...this is the exact same thing as a marriage without the marriage. This is an obvious absurdity to the concept of marriage.

I agree that with or without sex, dating, even without talking, marriages can turn out from terrible to excellent. My point is that the better you interact and investigate your partner, the better you will determine who is best for you for marriage. You suggest that by having sex, "one has done the exact same thing as a marriage without the marriage" My question 5) Am I to understand from this that you believe the purpose of marriage is to unlock sexual activity? and that once one has had sex, they have fulfilled everything that a marriage is supposed to fulfil?

Here we go again. If it's just touch, don't touch them any which way, if it's sexual, don't touch them sexually. If someone can't differentiate between sexual and non sexual, don't touch them any which way. To say that it HAS to be penetrative vaginal sex where the man has deposited sperm inside the vaginal canal and ONLY what it means based on having waiting periods...then once again open up the gates to absurd situations where a man can do anything inclusive of sex without a condom and pulling out at the last minute and getting away with it. 423 now becomes a joke, and dakhala is long as you didn't have a kid with the woman, you can marry her daughter. When the very word means entry/admittance!
My question was "What should we understand by touch in 2237? No physical touch at all? No sexual touch at all? Please explain your reasons for your answer." Do you take is as sexual? Non-sexual (like holding hands)? I'm not sure on your take on this. Also I didn't fully get what you meant on 423. What are you conveying with regards to dakhala?

Noon_waalqalami

Is there a possible better understanding of MMA here? Hypothetically is there anything at all other than girlfriend or fiance?

Peace, not referring to girlfriends or fiance ...

what possess their right hands -- that in ones grasp/means/wherewithal which includes those things in their control from mental capacity, resources, financial, etc.

3028 shows to you example from yourselves shall to you from what possess your right hands/means from/any partners in what We have provided you so you in it alike you fear them as you fear yourselves like that We clarify the verses for people who reason

nimnimak_11

Salam Noon

How would this understanding
what possess their right hands -- that in ones grasp/means/wherewithal which includes those things in their control from mental capacity, resources, financial, etc.
work at 424-25? When we are prohibited from marrying the muhsinat except those that are MMA, what exactly does MMA mean here in your opinion?

What would be the implications of not being able to marry the muhsinat that are not possessed by our right hands--means
Does that mean that once they become within our means, they are MMA? What does it take, to make them MMA? Once they become MMA we can ungaurd our farooj to them?

Noon_waalqalami

Salam Noon

How would this understanding work at 424-25? When we are prohibited from marrying the muhsinat except those that are MMA, what exactly does MMA mean here in your opinion?

What would be the implications of not being able to marry the muhsinat that are not possessed by our right hands--means
Does that mean that once they become within our means, they are MMA? What does it take, to make them MMA? Once they become MMA we can ungaurd our farooj to them?

Peace nimnimak_11,

Careful with except (use only) read from 423;
424 continues prohibited onto you and that you 'gathered between" (see also 43) ....

423-25 prohibited onto you.... and that you gathered between the two sisters only what hence passed indeed The God is Forgiving Merciful and al-mu--a-na-t from al-nisa/women only what possess your right hands/means ....

425 and from not is able from you awlan/height that marry al-mu--a-n-a-t the believers (feminine) so from what possess your right hands/means from fataytikumu your maidens the believers

nimnimak_11

Peace Noon waalqalami

Peace nimnimak_11,

Careful with except (use only) read from 423; 424 continues prohibited onto you and that you gather....

423-25 prohibited onto you.... and that you gathered between the two sisters only what hence passed indeed The God is Forgiving Merciful and al-mu--a-na-t from al-nisa/women only what possess your right hands/means ....

425 and from not is able from you awlan/height that marry al-mu--a-n-a-t the believers (feminine) so from what possess your right hands/means from fataytikumu your maidens the believers

Am I correct that you understand "illa" to mean "only" in 424? I don't think I can agree to that. The cross-reference of illa suggests otherwise to me
http//corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=%3Cil~aA#(4244)
Also if we understand "illa" to mean "only" it would result in the following

423-25 prohibited to you are....and the the muhsinat only the MMA...those who cannot marry the muhsinat, then marry from the fatayat that are MMA.

So this would mean, the Quran is restricting marriage to the muhsinat that are within our means/right hands possession but recommends marriage to the fatayat that within our means/right hands possess. I don't think this works to be honest.

Primarily though my issue is with understanding illa as only when cross-reference strongly appears to favour except.
Thus this remains. What are the muhsinat MMA? The muhsinat who are within our means? Would it not be better to understand them as fiance's or girlfriends?

savage_carrot

424-25 are verses with regards to whom you can marry. Not about whom you can have sex with. I acknowledge this. My point is that at 424, the muhsinat are prohibited unless they are MMA and should we be unable to marry the muhsinat, then we marry the fatayat MMA. Given this the MMA here must refer to something like a girlfriend or a fiance. That is all I want to convey from this verse. This verse alone does not mean sex with MMA is permissible. My question to you 1) Is there a possible better understanding of MMA here? Hypothetically is there anything at all other than girlfriend or fiance?
The first order of business is to know whether we can or cannot have sex with MMA, forget about marriage verses. Like I pointed out to you before pages back and noon is pointing out is exactly what you should be looking at. What characteristics do MMA have as a category that are provided in the quran and work with those.
The best distinction between the muhsinat and the fatayat occurs at 424-25 and the clearest meaning is independent and dependent. There is absolutely no other possible alternative that could come close to working from what i've checked of the roots of these two arabic words. Given that muhsinat = independent and that the independent women are prohibited for marriage unless they are MMA, this further strengthens the notion that the MMA at 424-25 are either fiances, or girlfriends. So my question 2) If you disagree on this, what other alternative can we take as muhsinat and fatayat? My point is there is nothing else that works at all. Not even hypothetically.
Above. If 235-6 is the verse being used for sex, that is the verse that should be discussed. Marriage with MMA's has nothing to do with sex before it. Regardless of what meaning you take for these words, the verse 235-6 and other verses are NOT telling you about a sexual subset within MMA. It just is MMA. One can be within their right to say non sexual category, and if sexual category, it opens up to all and people decide what's cool using fahisha as they see fit.
MMA are anyone whom our oaths possess. If the nature of the oaths that are in place encompass sexual activity, then you have sexual subset within MMA. There obviously are categories where oaths are in place that encompass sexual activity. Most sensible example (in order) are wives, finaces and girlfriends. I used 424-25 to convey that MMA are fiances or possibly girlfriends. This is not to say that these are the only meanings that MMA encompasses. Thus MMA can take the subset of sexual partners. Given that we can unguard our private parts to the MMA and that the MMA can take the form of a fiance or a girlfriend, then this entails sex with the MMA is permissible (provided there are no other furthter restrictions)
This is assuming that sex with girlfriends and fiancee's is permissible. First we deal with that. Also sexual activity doesn't come with the territory. People can marry, have girlfriends or fiancee's and refuse to/not have sex for any reason. Sex is not incumbent upon anyone or any role. They can have mutual asexual relationships inclusive of marriage and still retain their title. These 'oaths encompassing sexual activity' you speak of...what are they then? How does one take an oath of any activity? It is either agreed upon or not. Since this is the case and one can't link it to any role unless they choose to include such activities...any mma can choose to agree upon mutual sexual activity in any capacity while still remaining MMA. The question remains, is it permissible.
And I have responded at least twice that, no you can't bed any MMA. The nature of the oaths in place must be sexual. This is not the case with a gardener (you don't even show your farooj to the gardener). To a doctor you show him your farooj. To a surgeon you let him operate on it. To your girlfriend, fiance or wife you engage in sex with them. Your family can't be your girlfriends since that obviously constitutes lewdness.

Yes of course you can say that someone having sex outside of marriage is a fahisha or a zina, just as one can say that sex with one's girlfriend is not a fahisha or a zina. These understandings on these words are possible. The question is which is more reasonable and what are the implications of this with regards to the ungaurding of one's private parts to their muhsinat MMA. This would open the way to a discussion on zina and fahisha. My question to you 4) So how is fahisha not a restriction then?
Above. What nature of oaths are sexual? There is no sexual nature of oaths...it's either an agreement to etc etc or not. Is sex permissible in these agreements with MMA's? If yes, then you don't have ONLY girlfriends or fiancees. This is what you're consistently not getting or avoiding. Once you open up sex with MMA and sex not being restricted to marriage, any mma is permissible to have a mutual sexual arrangement with.

Once again like before you aren't getting the point that some would consider marrying first cousins fahisha. They don't need to be a marriage restriction either just like we don't have a restriction on eating human flesh. I don't accept a willy nilly nature of fahisha. We can either discern what is or what it isn't from the quran, or we can't and it's entirely up to a person to lump whatever he wants into it for whatever reason. This is why, unless you can reason why it's fahisha from the quran and other than what's socially un/acceptable, using it as a subjective shield doesn't cut it. My view is sexual activities outside marriage is a fahisha <--- (415, 419, 425, 3330, 651) ---> It turns into zina with a punishment when it fulfills that criteria (242-9). If it stays below zina levels, it's between them and God (3135). Open/clear fahisha is inclusive of sexual activities outside marriage that can receive a punishment and/or have witnesses/evidence, contrasted to hidden fahisha (733, 6151). There are clear links between fahisha and zina and there is nothing in the quran about it being exclusive to marriage.

What is your understanding of fahisha and zina from the quran?

I agree that with or without sex, dating, even without talking, marriages can turn out from terrible to excellent. My point is that the better you interact and investigate your partner, the better you will determine who is best for you for marriage. You suggest that by having sex, "one has done the exact same thing as a marriage without the marriage" My question 5) Am I to understand from this that you believe the purpose of marriage is to unlock sexual activity? and that once one has had sex, they have fulfilled everything that a marriage is supposed to fulfil?

I've been saying what's the difference to everything you say can be done with a fiancee or girlfriend for pages now. It's YOU that has this understanding of the exact same thing as a marriage without the marriage. Live with them? Why not. Sex with them? Why not. Share wealth with them? Why not. Have a baby with them? Hm, maybe not. Pity you couldn't use fahisha there probably since transgressor of an imaginary limit was available. What if they have a baby? Social services/adoption. Any punishment/legal recourse/maintenance/laws? Nah, it wasn't his fault and aren't any even if it is.

My question was "What should we understand by touch in 2237? No physical touch at all? No sexual touch at all? Please explain your reasons for your answer." Do you take is as sexual? Non-sexual (like holding hands)? I'm not sure on your take on this. Also I didn't fully get what you meant on 423. What are you conveying with regards to dakhala?
Answered multiple times. If someone thinks we shouldn't touch them at all, then don't touch them at all. If someone thinks it's only sexual touches, then don't touch them sexually. What more do you want? Whether I choose a or b is irrelevant. Touches can only encompass sexual or non sexual. Usage of the word touch CANNOT lead to ONLY vaginal sex where the sperm MUST be deposited in the vaginal canal. The iddah is different in different places. Iddah can be for kids, can be for what God deems sufficient time after a divorce/death to move on to what's next etc for whatever reason. What do you think dakhaltum means in 423?

Noon_waalqalami

Am I correct that you understand "illa" to mean "only" in 424? I don't think I can agree to that. The cross-reference of illa suggests otherwise to me
http//corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=%3Cil~aA#(4244)

Peace nimnimak_11,

Translations are all inconsistent with little regard to cross-reference; only fits best throughout Qur'an.

Also if we understand "illa" to mean "only" it would result in the following

423-25 prohibited to you are....and the the muhsinat only the MMA...those who cannot marry the muhsinat, then marry from the fatayat that are MMA.

So this would mean, the Quran is restricting marriage to the muhsinat that are within our means/right hands possession but recommends marriage to the fatayat that within our means/right hands possess. I don't think this works to be honest.

Primarily though my issue is with understanding illa as only when cross-reference strongly appears to favour except.
Thus this remains. What are the muhsinat MMA? The muhsinat who are within our means? Would it not be better to understand them as fiance's or girlfriends?

al-mu-h-sa-na-t are not prohibited to marry, that would contradict.

55 this day permitted to you...
... and al-mu-h-sa-na-t from the believers (feminine)

Prohibited is gathering between al-mu-h-sa-na-t same with sisters. Read in context, ignore verse #'s which are only for reference.

423 prohibited onto you ...
... and that you gathered between the two sisters
... only what hence passed indeed The God is Forgiving Merciful
... and al-mu-h-sa-na-t from al-nisa/women
... only what possess your right hands/means

43 and if you fear that not you will be able to do justice in the orphans
... so marry what choice to you from al-nisa/the women twos and three and four
... so if you fear that not you can do justice so one or what possess your right hands/means
.... that lowest/minimum that not you oppress

425 al-mu-h-sa-n-a-t were previously married (divorced, widowed, etc.) who some consider less desirable or beneath them.

425 and from not is able from you tawlan/height that marry al-mu-h-sa-n-a-t the believers
... so from what possess your right hands/means from fataytikum your maidens/never married the believers

... and The God Knows in your faith some of you from some/others
... so marry them by permission their family and give them their rewards in fair manner

... mu-h-sa-n-a-t (in wedlock) not mu-s-a-f-h-a-t (out of wedlock) and not those who take secret lovers
... so when they are protected so if they commit b-f-a-h-sh-t in immorality
... so to them half what onto al-mu-h-sa-n-a-t from the punishment

2423 indeed the ones who accuse al-mu-h-sa-n-a-t the unaware the believers (feminine) cursed in the world and the hereafter and for them punishment great

nimnimak_11

What characteristics do MMA have as a category that are provided in the quran and work with those.

1)That's what i've tried to do. 424-25 implies a class that has characteristics important prior to marriage that is relevant and important to marriage. Best of these are fiance/girlfriends. Can there be any other options at 424-25?

Above. If 235-6 is the verse being used for sex, that is the verse that should be discussed. Marriage with MMA's has nothing to do with sex before it. Regardless of what meaning you take for these words, the verse 235-6 and other verses are NOT telling you about a sexual subset within MMA. It just is MMA. One can be within their right to say non sexual category, and if sexual category, it opens up to all and people decide what's cool using fahisha as they see fit.

235-6 is being discussed in conjunction with other verses 424-25, fahisha, zina and 2222-240. If 235-6 was to be discussed alone without the rest of the Quran, conclusion would be, one can ungaurd their private parts to their zawj and anyone whom their oaths possess. I agree it is just MMA meaning all MMA unless we find implications of restrictions elsewhere but this means sex with anyone whom your oaths possess unless there are restrictions elsewhere. No it does not open to all people because fahisha is a restriction and a sufficiently solid one IMO. Do you not agree that fahisha is a restriction? Do you think that there is one set meaning for it other than lewdness?

This is assuming that sex with girlfriends and fiancee's is permissible. First we deal with that.

This is dealt with by there not being restrictions on having sex with fiances and girlfriends. Everything is permitted unless there are restrictions. Sexual activity requires the unguarding of one's private parts and this activity is restricted to only the zawj or the MMA. So long as girlfriends and fiances fall under the MMA category, then they sex is permitted with them. To assume that sex with fiances and girlfriends is impermissible, one must convey that the MMA at 235-6 does not encompass fiances and girlfriends or that if they do, there are restrictions such as 2237 that add to the restriction of unguarding one's private parts. So far you have suggested 434. 2237, 2458, 2431 and 423-24 along with the concepts of fahisha and zina as retrictions. I've replied to all of them and AFAIK have not recieved your comments on my replies to you with regards to them. Thus either you have agreed to disagree about them, did not see my replies, or agree with me or have just left it for more important points to discuss. Either way I have replied to you on all that you have argued in favour of the exclusivity of sex to marriage.

Above. What nature of oaths are sexual? There is no sexual nature of oaths...it's either an agreement to etc etc or not.

Sex is not incumbent upon anyone or any role. They can have mutual asexual relationships inclusive of marriage and still retain their title. These 'oaths encompassing sexual activity' you speak of...what are they then?

With one's wife, fiance or girlfriend there are oaths in place that encompass sexual activity. Some may choose not to engage in sex despite the nature of their oaths allowing sexual activity. Or it may be that they have agreed that their relation is such that it does not encompass sexual activity thus different oaths are in place between them.

Once again like before you aren't getting the point that some would consider marrying first cousins fahisha.

If they do then they shouldn't marry their first cousins. If they choose to impose this on others, they need to justify this. There are cases where marrying one's first cousin can arguably be a fahisha. For example, a blood test of both the first cousins is taken and the results strongly suggest that should the married female first cousin come to be pregnant, her child would come out with defects. You could say that in this case, marrying a first cousin is not a fahisha. But should they marry and engage in sex that leads to children, then IMO this is a fahisha. If they engage in sex that does not lead to kids, then IMO this is not fahisha.

we don't have a restriction on eating human flesh.

We are told not to transgress. This determines much with regards to when if ever it is permissible to eat human flesh. From the Quran examples can be taken that aid our understanding of transgression.

I don't accept a willy nilly nature of fahisha. We can either discern what is or what it isn't from the quran, or we can't and it's entirely up to a person to lump whatever he wants into it for whatever reason. This is why, unless you can reason why it's fahisha from the quran and other than what's socially un/acceptable, using it as a subjective shield doesn't cut it.

Some cases of what is fahisha is clear. Some more controversial. But no way can you say narrow what fahisha is to examples in the Quran. This would cause much problems.

There are clear links between fahisha and zina and there is nothing in the quran about it being exclusive to marriage.
What is your understanding of fahisha and zina from the quran?

I agree there are clear links. We are told not to come near zina for it is a fahisha.
Zina = adultery fahisha = lewdness.

It's YOU that has this understanding of the exact same thing as a marriage without the marriage. Live with them? Why not. Sex with them? Why not. Share wealth with them?

No I do not think marriage without the marriage. There is nothing restricting a couple from living together. Nothing restricting them from having sex together. There are implications that having kids together should be kept to marriage. Thus they should not do anything that leads to kids. Distinction between marriage and a couple living together you ask? Children, legal status, inheritance, further rights and acknowledgement and documentation of a long-term commitment.

What if they have a baby? Social services/adoption. Any punishment/legal recourse/maintenance/laws? Nah, it wasn't his fault and aren't any even if it is.

It was their fault. Recklessness. Punishment? not by the state IMO. If mother and father can't provide and look after the child appropriately and adequately, then social services takes over. That may be punishment enough or encouragement enough for the parents to strive to create suitable conditions for their child IMO.

Answered multiple times. If someone thinks we shouldn't touch them at all, then don't touch them at all. If someone thinks it's only sexual touches, then don't touch them sexually. What more do you want? Whether I choose a or b is irrelevant. Touches can only encompass sexual or non sexual.

What more do i want? I would like reasons for your understanding of what touch means. As in what lead you to your understanding of touch = .....

My view is sexual activities outside marriage is a fahisha <--- (415, 419, 425, 3330, 651) --->

I've looked at all these verses. Where is there any implications that sexual activity without a marriage certificate constitutes fahisha? I can't discuss your POV if don't understand what it's based on.

Open/clear fahisha is inclusive of sexual activities outside marriage that can receive a punishment and/or have witnesses/evidence, contrasted to hidden fahisha (733, 6151).

Which part of 733, 6151, 415, 419, 425, 3330, 651 implies Open/clear fahisha is inclusive of sexual activities outside marriage?

I was hoping you'd answer this 235-6 implies unguarding of private parts to zawj or MMA. 424-25 clearly imply the MMA are fiances/girlfriends (if you disagree with MMA=girlfriend or fiance, please explain why) Does this not mean that one can unguard their private parts to their fiances/girlfriends?

and this
There are further implications of limitations with regards to both the zawj and the MMA and the unguarding of the private parts. The sort of unguarding and to whom of the MMA it is being unguarded must not constitute either fahisha or zina. Furthermore there can be no ungaurding of the private parts to the MMA in such a manner as to lead to pregnancies (2237) How else could you add to these restrictions in such a manner as to make all sexual activity exclusive to marriage?