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

nimnimak_11

Peace Wakas

Simple. The verb is imperfect, meaning if/when in future you marry you can only do XYZ. It does not make an exception if one is married or not, it applies to all situations.

Yes I do believe it is simple. I have not misunderstood you. I think you have misunderstood me. This part in particular

does the usage of this word guarantee that those committing zani were in fact never married?

I think the answer to that is no. Agreed? I'm pretty sure you'd agree. Now my point
For you to prove, 100% beyond doubt that zani also refers to sexual activity without a marriage certificate, i.e. fornication,
you need to show something that guarantees that zina must encompass sexual activity without marriage status. You haven't done this IMO. Thus your proof is not 100% and no where near it to be honest.

In short and to put it accurately, your suggestion is that because it says al-zniyatu must marry al zani or polytheist, this guarantees that zina encompasses fornication. You could say it may encompass fornication. But this is just like me saying it may not encompass fornication with regards to 242.

In sum 242 does not hold any of the proof that you claim it does. It's the rest of the Quran along with aql that we use to understand the concept of zina when we look at what it potentially means. Also it's the rest of the Quran along with aql that we use to understand 242.

You have made an exception without any evidence.

I haven't made an exception without any evidence. I think you've made an assumption without any evidence. Have you truly sat down and considered the arguments for and against zina as entailing more than just adultery? Or assessed the verses that imply sexual activity is not exclusive to marriage?

If you are happy making exceptions to Quran's guidance without evidence other than your own opinion, fine.

It certainly is not fine to make exceptions to Quran's guidance based on opinion and it certainly is not fine to make assumptions about the Quran based on opinion.

Each to their own.

I agree.

Peace

nimnimak_11

Salam nimnimak

I have a question

Have you taken into consideration that "whom your right hand possess" or "maintained by your oaths" can mean a woman you have claimed ownership over? We must not forget that eventhough the Quran is timeless it was written using phrases and words common in 600AD.

The Romans had a tradition to put a ring on a woman's finger as a sign for her and others that she belonged to him. In other words, an engagement was seen as a claim and the woman as property. This tradition was adopted in judaism and christianity (although the christian wedding ring came after the Quran). Over the years the symbol no longer represents "property", only committment.

Maybe I am completely wrong, have not thought about this subject before....but you are obviously well-read so I thought asking cannot harm anyone

Peace Emil

Yes. I do believe that MMA can entail a woman whom you have claimed ownership over (if such a claim is not a transgression) because it can be encompassed by the phrase those whom your oaths possess.

My understanding of MMA is very literal. I do not believe that the MMA were just one category or class that existed in the past. I believe that MMA can range from doctors and maids to girlfriends and finaces because oaths are in place. I think if MMA is understood as one narrow category, this would lead to the problem that we would not be able to allow doctors, caretakers and surgeons or anyone else access to our private parts except the zawj due to the limitation that is imposed at 235-6. Thus my current understanding is that the MMA must be understood literally and broadly. There's more to why I think the MMA encompass fiance's and girlfriends but this can be found here

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

I need to update it based on certain discussions i've had so far. There have been some interesting points made which I am still discussing. I am waiting for those discussions to end before updating the summary if this be needed but I think you'l still find some relevant info there.

nimnimak_11

Forgive the repetition, but this argument truly does loiter.

A shift in meaning of a signifier (a word) from that which it originally signified can only be considered as true upon the presentation of a sizeable body of evidence in the form of a corpus from which the use of said signifier - in signifying any number of significations - can be tallied, analysed, and derived.

Brothers and sisters, zaani can only mean one who performs sex outside marriage, invariably.

There is not, and has never been (since circa the 6th century) any signification of zaani other than that above defined.

Adultery is a consequential act which is purely incidental to the Arabic definition of zinaa, that is to say, zinaa can be performed by married and unmarried people.

Whoever claims otherwise, for whatever purpose his fancies so dictate to him, then let him undertake the arduous task of presenting to the members of this forum, and indeed presenting to the world at large, the necessary texts dating back to the centuries immediately proximate to the Quran's revelation with which he can demonstrate his proposed lexicon in order to give his statements any sense of validation.

Otherwise, let him desist in propagating such falsity stemming either from the fact that he does not know (in which case no blame is on him), or from the fact that he does not care to know (in which case his judgement lies with God).

Peace!

Peace uq

I've looked at the root of zina and what it possibly means. Before deciding on what it could mean,
I've looked at the rest of the Quran with regards to sexual restriction and also used aql.

Based on certain verses in the Quran and also based on the irrationality and impracticality of zina being understood as more than just adultery, I have understood it to mean just adultery.

uq

Peace nimnimak_11,

I will grant the possibility of the existence of Qur'an-specific meanings of any word, on the pivotal condition that said word occurs in as many unrelated grammatical constructs as the language permits, and with a frequency as is sufficient to form a corpus from which a cohesive meaning - independent of the Arabic language - can be derived.

I will grant that words such as salaah and zakaah (and their de-verbal derivatives) occur enough times and in as many varying constructs, that each can bear a meaning which, at most, is independent of the Arabic language, or, at least, modulates the original meaning.

The case for words such as these can certainly be entertained. The case for zinaa does not even exist.

It is this shocking flaw in the approach of analysis and inference that has me greatly concerned for the state of this community.

I fear that there are some who more approach iftiraa' than they do sound reasoning.

Maha

Salam nimnimak

I have a question

Have you taken into consideration that "whom your right hand possess" or "maintained by your oaths" can mean a woman you have claimed ownership over? We must not forget that eventhough the Quran is timeless it was written using phrases and words common in 600AD.

The Romans had a tradition to put a ring on a woman's finger as a sign for her and others that she belonged to him. In other words, an engagement was seen as a claim and the woman as property. This tradition was adopted in judaism and christianity (although the christian wedding ring came after the Quran). Over the years the symbol no longer represents "property", only committment.

Maybe I am completely wrong, have not thought about this subject before....but you are obviously well-read so I thought asking cannot harm anyone

But what about the male MMA? Does it mean that if I believe that I own a man then he would be my MMA?

Wakas

nima,

Firstly, let me clarify something

You could say it may encompass fornication. But this is just like me saying it may not encompass fornication with regards to 242.

Do you even bother to read and reflect upon what I write or do you just spout words without due care?

From http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9603879.msg303547;topicseen#msg303547

This proves 100% beyond doubt that zani can refer to activity out with marriage, i.e. fornication.

From http//thesaurus.com/browse/may?s=t

may
Part of Speech verb
Definition grant permission
Synonyms be allowed, be authorized, be permitted, can, can do

Now, let me break it down so perhaps you might understand

Nima thinks "zina" means "adultery". Wakas thinks "zina" means "fornication/adultery".

So, let us determine what they base their view on.

Wakas

All classical Arabic dictionaries state "zina" to mean both adultery AND fornication, and more basically refers to mounting upon a thing (i.e. sex). From PRL
"Zay-Nun-Ya = to mount, the mounting upon a thing, to commit fornication/adultery, fornicator/adulterer."
Quran seems to use it in this way, e.g. 242-3.

Nima

Has not provided any Classical Arabic source which says it exclusively means adultery.
Has not shown any evidence from Quran it means other than "fornication/adultery", and is forced to restrict the meaning when this is unwarranted by the Arabic, e.g.

The male zani will not marry (after they divorce or are divorced) except a female zani or a polytheist woman. The female zani not will marry (after they divorce or are divorced) her except a male zani or a polytheist man. And is forbidden that upon the believers.

Until you can provide either (1) or (2) you have based your view on conjecture.

And as Quran clearly says

...Conjecture is no substitute for the truth.

So until you provide some evidence/reason, stop wasting mine and everyone else's time, or at least have the decency to clarify for all that your view is based on nothing but conjecture.

Bigmo

nima,

Firstly, let me clarify something

Do you even bother to read and reflect upon what I write or do you just spout words without due care?

From http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9603879.msg303547;topicseen#msg303547

From http//thesaurus.com/browse/may?s=t

Now, let me break it down so perhaps you might understand

Nima thinks "zina" means "adultery". Wakas thinks "zina" means "fornication/adultery".

So, let us determine what they base their view on.

Wakas

All classical Arabic dictionaries state "zina" to mean both adultery AND fornication, and more basically refers to mounting upon a thing (i.e. sex). From PRL
"Zay-Nun-Ya = to mount, the mounting upon a thing, to commit fornication/adultery, fornicator/adulterer."
Quran seems to use it in this way, e.g. 242-3.

Nima

Has not provided any Classical Arabic source which says it exclusively means adultery.
Has not shown any evidence from Quran it means other than "fornication/adultery", and is forced to restrict the meaning when this is unwarranted by the Arabic, e.g.

The male zani will not marry (after they divorce or are divorced) except a female zani or a polytheist woman. The female zani not will marry (after they divorce or are divorced) her except a male zani or a polytheist man. And is forbidden that upon the believers.

Until you can provide either (1) or (2) you have based your view on conjecture.

And as Quran clearly says

...Conjecture is no substitute for the truth.

So until you provide some evidence/reason, stop wasting mine and everyone else's time, or at least have the decency to clarify for all that your view is based on nothing but conjecture.

There is nothing in Arabic that says fornification and adultery is Zina. There is no way a word can mean both since one is betrayal the other is not.

SarahY

There is nothing in Arabic that says fornification and adultery is Zina. There is no way a word can mean both since one is betrayal the other is not.

Actually lanes dictionary says it, if you read in the middle column
http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume3/00000426.pdf

Moreover Arabic words can encompass more than one English word meaning. if it's not both what is it?

just a thought, someone could interpret zina as illegal sex.

peace

Wakas

peace bigmo,

There is nothing in Arabic that says fornification and adultery is Zina. There is no way a word can mean both since one is betrayal the other is not.

Thanks for weighing in. What you cite is a conceptual objection, not the types of evidence I requested of nima. A conceptual objection is fine in my view, but without supporting evidence it completely hinges upon assuming one's thinking is correct.

In any case, let's examine...... let us assume that, according to you, "zina" means "adultery" only as it is a "betrayal". Tell us, what does Quran say about a married man who has sexual relations with an unmarried woman who knows he is married.

As per Quran +your thinking is this a "betrayal"? yes/no.

Either way you answer, please elaborate. Bear in mind, whatever way you answer, you will have to adopt this principle for such scenarios.

Mazhar

In any case, let's examine...... let us assume that, according to you, "zina" means "adultery" only as it is a "betrayal".

a?dul?ter?y
noun
extramarital sex voluntary sexual relations between a married person and somebody other than his or her spouse

-a?dul?ter?er, , noun

for?ni?ca?tion
noun

consenting sex involving somebody unmarried sexual intercourse between two consenting adults who are not married to each other
sexual behavior considered immoral in the Bible, sexual intercourse between a man and woman who are not married, or any form of sexual behavior considered to be immoral

Unless in some law book, a differentiation is made while defining both the nouns, there appears no difference in both. They in ordinary parlance mean one and the same thing.

Emil

But what about the male MMA? Does it mean that if I believe that I own a man then he would be my MMA?

Peace Maha

I don?t know, hence the question to Nimnimak....

But it seems likely that it is not the case.... Sura 4 is called An-Nisa and it covers man's relation to the woman, so without much thought but gut feeling verse 23 is directed towards the man.

Like I said, it hit me when I heard about the Romans calling their women "property" that even though the Quran is timeless it is written in a language of the time 600AD.

I am probably missing a lot, I havent thought so much about it before....

By the way, you own the man. No matter what we men think we are the woman's possession hail

Maha

Peace Emil . Well surah 33 tells us that women also have MMA so I guess if a woman owns a male then he is her MMA as well. Well the Romans might have called women their property but I am pretty sure that female Romans also called the male Romans for "property" at least when they were gossiping with their other female friends rotfl

Men think they own women and women think they own men rotfl but I am pretty sure that even today Any male or female can get owned by a gorgeous and charming personality Like brad Pitt

Emil

Peace Emil . Well surah 33 tells us that women also have MMA so I guess if a woman owns a male then he is her MMA as well. Well the Romans might have called women their property but I am pretty sure that female Romans also called the male Romans for "property" at least when they were gossiping with their other female friends rotfl

Men think they own women and women think they own men rotfl but I am pretty sure that even today Any male or female can get owned by a gorgeous and charming personality Like brad Pitt

Thanks for pointing out sura 33, will read in-depth tomorrow

Still not convinced though, feel pretty owned all the time..........I try to rebel sometimes but I get harshly punished. I think my wife has taken 434 too literally....but in reverse.....I guess I don't have whatever Brad Pitt does.....

nimnimak_11

Peace nimnimak_11,

I will grant the possibility of the existence of Qur'an-specific meanings of any word, on the pivotal condition that said word occurs in as many unrelated grammatical constructs as the language permits, and with a frequency as is sufficient to form a corpus from which a cohesive meaning - independent of the Arabic language - can be derived.

I will grant that words such as salaah and zakaah (and their de-verbal derivatives) occur enough times and in as many varying constructs, that each can bear a meaning which, at most, is independent of the Arabic language, or, at least, modulates the original meaning.

The case for words such as these can certainly be entertained. The case for zinaa does not even exist.

It is this shocking flaw in the approach of analysis and inference that has me greatly concerned for the state of this community.

I fear that there are some who more approach iftiraa' than they do sound reasoning.

Peace uq

I will re-express my views on zina in like a summary form. Then you can judge if in this case there has been use of sound reasoning or not.
But I would rather do this when I return home as I am very busy here.

nimnimak_11

But what about the male MMA? Does it mean that if I believe that I own a man then he would be my MMA?

No your belief is not enough IMO. There needs to be oaths involved between the two you such that your oaths possess him. For example Your doctor, your boyfriend etc.

nimnimak_11

Peace Wakas

Do you even bother to read and reflect upon what I write or do you just spout words without due care?

Fair enough, I will correct my mistake. I thought you were suggesting that when it says al-zniyatu must marry al zani or polytheist, this guarantees that zina encompasses fornication. where as you were not saying this. You were saying zina CAN mean both fornication and adultery. I never disagreed with this. I did not say that zina is guaranteed to exclusively mean adultery.
Either way I apologise Wakas.

Nima thinks "zina" means "adultery". Wakas thinks "zina" means "fornication/adultery".

So, let us determine what they base their view on.

Wakas

All classical Arabic dictionaries state "zina" to mean both adultery AND fornication, and more basically refers to mounting upon a thing (i.e. sex). From PRL
"Zay-Nun-Ya = to mount, the mounting upon a thing, to commit fornication/adultery, fornicator/adulterer."
Quran seems to use it in this way, e.g. 242-3.

Ok I'm pretty sure that using our aql and looking at the Quran as a whole is important to our understanding of concepts such as zina, salat, darb and so on. You've only used 242-3 as Quranic verse evidence to support that zina entails more than just adultery. I think you should look at the rest of the Quran as well.

Nima

Read my last post. There is no proof in there implying that zina = adultery and fornication.

Until you can provide either (1) or (2) you have based your view on conjecture.

Perhaps you have read this thread, perhaps you have not. If you have, then please respond to all the implications of sex not being exclusive to marriage as has been discussed in these forums.

So until you provide some evidence/reason, stop wasting mine and everyone else's time, or at least have the decency to clarify for all that your view is based on nothing but conjecture.

Wakas there have been more than 60 pages of discussion on verses that imply the permissibility of sex outside of marriage.
Within these 60 pages of thread discussion I have explained 1) why I believe zina understood as fornication and adultery is problematic. 2) Quranic verses that imply sex is not exclusive to marriage 3) Responded to feedback/criticism and changed my view when evidence was there.

Maintain the peace and refrain from being rude or provocative.

Peace

Bigmo

peace bigmo,

Thanks for weighing in. What you cite is a conceptual objection, not the types of evidence I requested of nima. A conceptual objection is fine in my view, but without supporting evidence it completely hinges upon assuming one's thinking is correct.

In any case, let's examine...... let us assume that, according to you, "zina" means "adultery" only as it is a "betrayal". Tell us, what does Quran say about a married man who has sexual relations with an unmarried woman who knows he is married.

As per Quran +your thinking is this a "betrayal"? yes/no.

Either way you answer, please elaborate. Bear in mind, whatever way you answer, you will have to adopt this principle for such scenarios.

The only time I saw Zina meaning both fornification and adultery is Sunni sources. Shias include lesbianism and homosexuality also. I have not seen independent Arabic sources that defines Zina such way except Islamic sources. If we were to assum that than what is the difference in terminology between fornification and adultery? That means Islamic sources sees the definition as the same but differ only in punishment. This is very unusual.

As far as what you said, the Quran said Zani and Zania. One can be the Zani (married man) but the women is not the Zania (in ur example). Whether she knows or not is not the issue. She is not binded by any oath. The man here is.

But most of all the Quran can not order anyone to hold any human accountable if there is no aggrieved party involved. Two people having sex is nobody's business just like two men having sex. Its only when there is an aggrieved party that the Quran interferes. What you are saying means that people should be punished for whats believed to be sins even if no other party is affected or wronged. This is Sunni/Shia talk. Unless some one is binded by oath to another party is\ts not anyone's business what he does or does not do. That is how the Quran understands justice and freedom.

Maha

No your belief is not enough IMO. There needs to be oaths involved between the two you such that your oaths possess him. For example Your doctor, your boyfriend etc.

Ah Thanks for pointing that out . I understand what you mean now.

nimnimak_11

Ah Thanks for pointing that out . I understand what you mean now.

Your welcome Maha

nimnimak_11

The only time I saw Zina meaning both fornification and adultery is Sunni sources. Shias include lesbianism and homosexuality also. I have not seen independent Arabic sources that defines Zina such way except Islamic sources. If we were to assume that than what is the difference in terminology between fornification and adultery? That means Islamic sources sees the definition as the same but differ only in punishment. This is very unusual.

As far as what you said, the Quran said Zani and Zania. One can be the Zani (married man) but the women is not the Zania (in ur example). Whether she knows or not is not the issue. She is not binded by any oath. The man here is.

But most of all the Quran can not order anyone to hold any human accountable if there is no aggrieved party involved. Two people having sex is nobody's business just like two men having sex. Its only when there is an aggrieved party that the Quran interferes. What you are saying means that people should be punished for whats believed to be sins even if no other party is affected or wronged. This is Sunni/Shia talk. Unless some one is binded by oath to another party is\ts not anyone's business what he does or does not do. That is how the Quran understands justice and freedom.

Thanks for pointing that out. Someone who agrees to marriage, or proposes marriage then gets married has agreed to/requested a documented life long commitment. To go and be unfaithful after accepting or proposing such a commitment surely deserves punishment. I think I can understand why an adulterer would be punished. Some would argue it is harsh but it can be seen why it would be justified given the nature of their crime. However this sort of punishment just doesn't make sense in the case of anything other than adultery IMO.

In Iran (according to my Dad), a family member who was 15 got his girlfriend pregnant. It is clear that there were more than 4 people aware that the two had engaged in sex without getting married (the pregnancy was evidence of this)
To lash these people 100 times IMO is ridiculous. In the end they got married and more than 20 years on, they are together and with two kids.

My aunt was a nurse in Iran and the stories she conveyed of young kids coming into hospital pregnant were unbelievable given the conditions of the "Islamic" Repubilic of Iran.

These kids are pregnant without getting married thus there is no doubt that they have fornicated. To lash each of these 100 times and to humiliate them publicly is IMO disgraceful from a state that does so.
If we consider lashing as a deterrent, is it even a good deterrent? The conditions and views of girls losing their virginity outside of marriage in that society of Iran during the time my Aunt worked as a nurse, was more than enough of a deterrent.