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

Wakas

Nima,

We are discussing "zina".

Thanks for clarifying you cannot provide any classical arabic dictionary evidence that "zina" means other than "adultery AND fornication"

Thanks for clarifying you cannot provide any Quran usage evidence showing "zina" means other than "adultery AND fornication".

Now that we have cleared that up...
You refer to this thread and discuss sex out with marriage, as per Quran. I can only assume your memory is poor, as you seemingly do not recall my view, which we have discussed, and is a perfect fit with Quran until proven otherwise MMA generally means those possessed by oath, and at the time of Quran's revelation, men had wives as well as women MMA (some were slaves some were concubines etc) however the latter did not have the same rights/status as a recognised spouse. Quran did not immediately ban this and dissolve all such relationships, due to the potential hardship/problems of doing this, but instead through a morale message, raising their status and limiting the ways in which such MMA could occur, eventually led to eliminating or drastically reducing this practice. Similar to how Quran dealt with slavery. This is also borne out in traditional Islamic history and Arab history of the time.

I have not studied the above in detail, but I have certainly not seen any evidence to the contrary.

Wakas

bigmo,

You claim you have not seen evidence of that meaning outside Sunni sources but SarahY provided a link to lane's lexicon
http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume3/00000426.pdf

Disproved. Simple.

Now, let's get back to what we were discussing...

I like how you tried to obfuscate what I asked, but that is not going to work with me. So, let's analyse your reply to what I specifically asked

You claim it is irrelevant if the women knew or not, so let's make it clear for all to see

In Bigmo's view, in his Quranic society, a 3rd party can knowingly help person A breach contract with person B and there is no issue whatsoever for the 3rd party, according to Bigmo's reading of Quran.

So, let's use this principle in Bigmo's Quranic society Business X has a contract with Business Y, and a 3rd party can knowingly help Business X breach its contract with Business Y and there is no issue whatsoever, according to bigmo's Quran this is fine.

Even though I find this objectionable, let us ask the critical question which will either refute your view or validate it

Please tell us where exactly is this discussed in Quran, because this issue is a significant one and one that would occur quite frequently. Please cite the verse references, and bear in mind, no verses suggesting the contrary can exist.

We are all ears Bigmo. Prove your case.

nimnimak_11

Peace Wakas

Are you objecting to the idea that zina can mean either of these three?

Fornication exclusively 2) Adultery exclusively 3) Adultery and fornication

In other words are you saying that zina MUST mean both adultery and fornication?

Thanks for clarifying you cannot provide any classical arabic dictionary evidence that "zina" means other than "adultery AND fornication"

Thanks for clarifying you cannot provide any Quran usage evidence showing "zina" means other than "adultery AND fornication".

Perhaps you should respond to my points before making making these comments as I believe them to be false. I sincerely hope our discussion can be peaceful, dignified and friendly.

I can only assume your memory is poor, as you seemingly do not recall my view, which we have discussed, and is a perfect fit with Quran until proven otherwise MMA generally means those possessed by oath, and at the time of Quran's revelation, men had wives as well as women MMA (some were slaves some were concubines etc) however the latter did not have the same rights/status as a recognised spouse.

I don't think the issue is my memory. You did not return to participate in the discussions that followed ours. Thus you may have missed certain relevant points. I will convey some of these to you in three questions

Would it not be zina in accordance with your understanding of the concept if these men had MMAs with whom they had sex with? Since to have sex with an MMA is to have sex outside of marriage.
What evidence/implication from the Quran do we have with regards to narrowing our conception of those whom our oaths possess to just concubines or slaves from the past
235-6 restricts us from unguarding our private parts to anyone who is not our zawj or MMA. How then can we allow surgeons to operate on us or allow doctors to examine our private parts if they are not of zawj or MMA?

I have not studied the above in detail, but I have certainly not seen any evidence to the contrary.

I think there is evidence in these forums that prove the contrary IMO. Perhaps the three questions I have asked you may convey this to you.

Godwilling we'l get to the truth

Peace

Bigmo

bigmo,

You claim you have not seen evidence of that meaning outside Sunni sources but SarahY provided a link to lane's lexicon
http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume3/00000426.pdf

Disproved. Simple.

Now, let's get back to what we were discussing...

I like how you tried to obfuscate what I asked, but that is not going to work with me. So, let's analyse your reply to what I specifically asked

You claim it is irrelevant if the women knew or not, so let's make it clear for all to see

In Bigmo's view, in his Quranic society, a 3rd party can knowingly help person A breach contract with person B and there is no issue whatsoever for the 3rd party, according to Bigmo's reading of Quran.

So, let's use this principle in Bigmo's Quranic society Business X has a contract with Business Y, and a 3rd party can knowingly help Business X breach its contract with Business Y and there is no issue whatsoever, according to bigmo's Quran this is fine.

Even though I find this objectionable, let us ask the critical question which will either refute your view or validate it

Please tell us where exactly is this discussed in Quran, because this issue is a significant one and one that would occur quite frequently. Please cite the verse references, and bear in mind, no verses suggesting the contrary can exist.

We are all ears Bigmo. Prove your case.

First of all the link you provided doe not open with me so maybe you can appaste what is in it. maybe that website is blocked where I am.

The question is not about breaching a contract or not. The question here is about accountability. Fornification by definition is sex between two parties who have no obligation with another party. Its really nobody's business. Freedom is sancrosanct in the Quran. This is their choice. The Quran gave people the freedom to disbelieve if they wish so we must respect the freedom the Quran gave. That is why the Quran can not mean fornification. If you read the verse in surat al nour its talking mostly about slandering. it always speaks of spouses so its about adultery and charges of adultery. The Quran does not give people the right to betray another party or slander them. Fornification has no bearing on anyone and its the parties involved own choice. We may say its a sin, but we can not include that as a crime that can be punished. This goes against the whole legal foundation of the Quran.

siki

First of all the link you provided doe not open with me so maybe you can appaste what is in it. maybe that website is blocked where I am.

The question is not about breaching a contract or not. The question here is about accountability. Fornification by definition is sex between two parties who have no obligation with another party. Its really nobody's business. Freedom is sancrosanct in the Quran. This is their choice. The Quran gave people the freedom to disbelieve if they wish so we must respect the freedom the Quran gave. That is why the Quran can not mean fornification. If you read the verse in surat al nour its talking mostly about slandering. it always speaks of spouses so its about adultery and charges of adultery. The Quran does not give people the right to betray another party or slander them. Fornification has no bearing on anyone and its the parties involved own choice. We may say its a sin, but we can not include that as a crime that can be punished. This goes against the whole legal foundation of the Quran.

logical

siki

siki

Peace

Zina, is a (legal or illegal) sexual mounting act witnessed by at least 4 people, that means God does not want such a performance in public.
What you do in private is your business if no body is hurt (fornication) but there are guidelines by Almighty and system repercussions, if you aren't legal in private .
What you do in private becomes society's business if some one is hurt (adultery) and also becomes God's business if you want to continue hurting by illegal sex and lies.
" Fwahish "( Fahishat) constitute Illegal sexual activities starting from anything (even a sexual chat) to actual mounting and you are advised to refrain from them.
For "Fwahish", the proven opportunity provider has to be kept in check till she dies or if her state of mind changes, and then the God will take care (becomes God's business)
(surprisingly there is no remedial measure for the opportunity grabber ;D )

Now, whats legal sexual activity? that's what we have to derive from Quran by debating.

siki

Wakas

Nima,

In other words are you saying that zina MUST mean both adultery and fornication?

I am saying the evidence clearly shows it means "adultery and fornication". You or anyone has provided nothing to the contrary.

I don't think the issue is my memory. You did not return to participate in the discussions that followed ours. Thus you may have missed certain relevant points. I will convey some of these to you in three questions

Would it not be zina in accordance with your understanding of the concept if these men had MMAs with whom they had sex with? Since to have sex with an MMA is to have sex outside of marriage.
What evidence/implication from the Quran do we have with regards to narrowing our conception of those whom our oaths possess to just concubines or slaves from the past
235-6 restricts us from unguarding our private parts to anyone who is not our zawj or MMA. How then can we allow surgeons to operate on us or allow doctors to examine our private parts if they are not of zawj or MMA?

Actually, part of the issue is your memory, but for the most part it is your logic. See here where I clearly stated my view and you participated in the thread and even quoted me later so clearly you did read what I wrote

see reply #45 http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599518.40

As everyone can see, your memory is poor. Perhaps you should reflect upon why you are seemingly making so many mistakes.

And as for your Qs - would you like me to do your homework for you? No thanks. The burden of proof is upon the claimant, and YOU are claiming contrary to what is found in classical arabic dictionaries and Quran usage. As I have said to you multiple times, do some actual thorough research, cover all the points, then write an article.

Wakas

bigmo,

First of all the link you provided doe not open with me so maybe you can appaste what is in it. maybe that website is blocked where I am.

Are you implying that you have not seen that meaning outside of Sunni sources yet haven't even bothered to check Lane's Lexicon (or perhaps any other classical arabic dictionary)? Is this the level of your research?

If so, why should anyone take what you say seriously? Buy Lane's Lexicon, download it, view it on other sites, e.g. http//www.tyndalearchive.com/TABS/Lane/ etc etc

Of course, I'd only expect someone who was a sincere truth seeker to actually bother to do that.

The question is not about breaching a contract or not. The question here is about accountability. Fornification by definition is sex between two parties who have no obligation with another party. Its really nobody's business. Freedom is sancrosanct in the Quran. This is their choice. The Quran gave people the freedom to disbelieve if they wish so we must respect the freedom the Quran gave. That is why the Quran can not mean fornification. If you read the verse in surat al nour its talking mostly about slandering. it always speaks of spouses so its about adultery and charges of adultery. The Quran does not give people the right to betray another party or slander them. Fornification has no bearing on anyone and its the parties involved own choice. We may say its a sin, but we can not include that as a crime that can be punished. This goes against the whole legal foundation of the Quran.

Note how you once again attempt to obfuscate. I want to clarify a specific point and principle. Interestingly you say "The Quran does not give people the right to betray another party or slander them." yet on the other hand say it's fine for a 3rd party to knowingly breach a contract between others - do not slander but helping to betray them is fine. I will leave this problem in your view for you to resolve.

In any case, thanks for clarifying for all to see you cant provide any specific Quran verses that discuss the specific issue/principle I raised.

Readers can make up their own minds.

And for the record, in case it was not blatantly obvious, I do not consider there to be a worldly punishment for unQuranic acts done in private with no witnesses/evidence/etc.

nimnimak_11

Peace Wakas

I am saying the evidence clearly shows it means "adultery and fornication". You or anyone has provided nothing to the contrary.

You are unfortunately refusing to look at the evidence that has been provided in this thread and are assuming yourself to be right without even discussing the points raised for zina meaning adultery alone.

Actually, part of the issue is your memory, but for the most part it is your logic. See here where I clearly stated my view and you participated in the thread and even quoted me later so clearly you did read what I wrote

see reply #45 http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599518.40

As everyone can see, your memory is poor. Perhaps you should reflect upon why you are seemingly making so many mistakes.

Yes unfortunately what your not seeing is that your comments have been addressed in these forums after what you and I discussed. This includes the waiting periods and so on. It appears that you have missed this since you did not comment on how the waiting periods and so on have been addressed. Again assuming yourself to be right.

And as for your Qs - would you like me to do your homework for you? No thanks.

You've got to be kidding me. Don't you get it? I've already addressed all these questions and the point of these questions to you are that your understanding of zina and MMA don't work with the Quran precisely because it cannot solve these questions. I've put my proof out there you haven't addressed it. Your not doing my homework, I've done my own. Do your own homework and look at your oppositions evidence and respond before assuming yourself to be right.

As I have said to you multiple times, do some actual thorough research, cover all the points, then write an article.

And I will say to you again, when someone does do their research and covers their points (like I have here) look at the points, respond to them without assuming you are right. It's obvious you've not been following the thread because you display a lack of awareness of what's gone on here.

and yes everyone can see but I'm not sure that you can see.
The questions remain for you to answer to defend your understanding. If you fail in answering them, I'l assume you've got no answer and are just avoiding them precisely because you recognise your theory does not work at all. Bear in mind that my understanding solves all those questions. Of course you won't be able to assess this unless you've actually looked at my theory and seen what it is

Peace

Bigmo

Nima,

I am saying the evidence clearly shows it means "adultery and fornication". You or anyone has provided nothing to the contrary.

Actually, part of the issue is your memory, but for the most part it is your logic. See here where I clearly stated my view and you participated in the thread and even quoted me later so clearly you did read what I wrote

see reply #45 http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599518.40

As everyone can see, your memory is poor. Perhaps you should reflect upon why you are seemingly making so many mistakes.

And as for your Qs - would you like me to do your homework for you? No thanks. The burden of proof is upon the claimant, and YOU are claiming contrary to what is found in classical arabic dictionaries and Quran usage. As I have said to you multiple times, do some actual thorough research, cover all the points, then write an article.

A man or woman who are married are not forced into a relatioship with someone else. Its a decision that they make. The other side has no such obligation. The verses of the Quran are talking about someone briging forth an accusation whether its a spouse or other parties. No such case will take place with someone who is not married since no other person is personally involved. Adultery causes major problems including violence, this is also the case with any parternship between man and woman which is why Zina is attached to betrayal. If a person knows that someone is married than that is not her accountability because she or he is not obligated with someone else.

I fail to understand what you mean that I fail to provide Quranic evidence. Everybody knows that cheating causes problems which is the whole point of the verses in the Quran. This thing leads to violence and sometimes murder. A person raising a charge as such about cheating and betrayal can cause huge problems. But if the woman or man is not married that this wont be the case. Some societies may not seperate between a woman married or not, but here its the parents and families and not a spouse. And its usually applied on women and not men which is not the goal of the verses of the Quran.

You said that you do not believe people should be held accountable for un Quranic act but the verse does talk about punishment.

The verse is looking at it the issue both from a moral standpoint and a legal standpoint. From a legal standpoint the verses could not mean fornification unless you interpret Zina as betrayal. Than it could.

Also by interpreting Zina as adultery and fornification seems to indicate both are of equal value when even Sunni sources sees them as different. This means you understand both punishments for adultery and fornification to be equal. This is very unusual and is not practical.

Wakas

Nima,

...your understanding of zina and MMA don't work with the Quran precisely because it cannot solve these questions. I've put my proof out there you haven't addressed it.

In your reply prior to the above reply, you cited no solid point to refute my understanding. Thus, if you do have such points, please cite your strongest one. I will have a look into it.

Wakas

Bigmo,

Let me clarify once again. I am saying if you have the view that you have, then Quran does not address the specific situation/principle I raised, and since it is significant and would occur frequently, then this is very odd.

Re-quoted

You claim it is irrelevant if the women knew or not, so let's make it clear for all to see

In Bigmo's view, in his Quranic society, a 3rd party can knowingly help person A breach contract with person B and there is no issue whatsoever for the 3rd party, according to Bigmo's reading of Quran.

So, let's use this principle in Bigmo's Quranic society Business X has a contract with Business Y, and a 3rd party can knowingly help Business X breach its contract with Business Y and there is no issue whatsoever, according to bigmo's Quran this is fine.

Even though I find this objectionable, let us ask the critical question which will either refute your view or validate it

Please tell us where exactly is this discussed in Quran, because this issue is a significant one and one that would occur quite frequently. Please cite the verse references, and bear in mind, no verses suggesting the contrary can exist.

We are all ears Bigmo. Prove your case.

You have not cited any verse references thus far.

You want us to believe that even though you cant bring any classical arabic dictionary evidence, you cant bring any Quran zina usage evidence, and you cant explain why consequential problems of your view are not mentioned in Quran.......... yet your view is correct.

As I said, we are all ears. Prove your case.

SarahY

Bigmo how can you tell which zina is fornication which is adultery and which is public sex or any other form of zina...

A man and a women who are not married are not forced into a relationship, does that make fornication ok?

The verse about bringing proof for someone who is unchaste doesn?t exclusively make it specific towards a spouse (if you're talking about 242). In society people make claims on people who aren?t married. moreover the verse after 243 says a zani should couple with a zani or a polytheist so how could a married person do that?? 246 is specific about accusation on a spouse. my understanding of these verses highlight how zina isn't exclusive to spouse.

Cheating causes problems. Yes no one denies that. Prostitution causes problems too. no-one forces them in a relationship.

Let me give a scenario A married man has an affair with his secretary. Secretary knows he is married yet still she agrees or insists to have sexual relations with him. No-one forced her into that relationship. How come she gets away with it clean? And he has to suffer? Only because he is married? Just because she is single?

That makes no sense. What if she intentionally tries to cause fitna? She is still innocent just because she isn?t married? I could say that is betrayal. Betrayal of a personal right, betrayal of professionalism and intentionally causing harm to the couple.

In this case should they not both be punished according to zina ruling? Lashes? Or you think only the man?

To her it?s fornication to him its adultery it?s still zina, is it not?

salam

Bigmo

The written Torah never forbids sex outside the context of marriage, with the exception of adultery and incest. On the contrary, the Torah seems to assume that it is a natural part of life. For example, when Judah sleeps with his daughterinlaw Tamar, mistaking her for a prostitute (Genesis 3, he is never condemned for the sexual act, only for avoiding his levirate responsibilities. Similarly, when King David in his old age is unable to keep warm, a young virgin, Abishag the Shunammite, is brought to share his bed and wait on him (I Kings 114). The Bible is natural and unembarrassed about the sexual activities of its major personalities. Although adultery and incest are explicitly forbidden, fornication is not.

It was the rabbis of the talmudic period who explicitly outlawed sexual relations outside marriage. One fascinating passage articulates the rabbinic attitude

?Rab Judah said in Rab?s name A man once conceived a passion for a certain woman, and his heart was consumed by his burning desire . When the doctors were consulted, they said ?His only cure is that she shall submit.? Thereupon the sages said ?Let him die rather than that she should yield.? Then ?Let her stand nude before him.? ?Sooner he should die.? The doctors said ?Let her converse with him from behind the fence.? ?Let him die,? the sages replied, ?rather than that she should converse with him from behind a fence.?

Now Rabbi Jacob ben Idi and Rabbi Samuel ben Nahmani disputed therein. One said that she was a married woman, the other that she was unmarried. Now, this is intelligible on the view that she was a married woman, but on the latter, that she was unmarried, why such severity? Rabbi Papa said Because of the disgrace to her family. Rabbi Aha the son of Rabbi Ika said That the daughters of Israel not be immorally dissolute. Then why not marry her? Marriage would not assuage his passion, even as Rabbi Isaac said Since the destruction of the Temple, sexual pleasure has been taken and given to sinners, as it is written ?Stolen waters are sweet and bread eaten in secret is pleasant? (Proverbs 917).?

The rabbis forbid this man to have sexual relations or even converse in private with this woman even though she is single and doing so would save his life. They give two reasons protecting her family name and preventing the daughters of Israel from being morally dissolute. We see here evidence of a rabbinic morality which has developed beyond strict biblical law.

The rabbis of the talmudic era also laid down strict rulings regarding modesty and the separation of the sexes. The intermingling of the sexes in public, even in synagogue, was frowned upon. A man and a woman unrelated by blood or marriage were not permitted yihud, being alone together in private.

Through such rulings and teachings, the rabbis attempted to prevent Jews from participating in sexual relations outside marraige. However, they could not unequivocally claim that sex outside marriage was forbidden in the Torah. Only one rabbi tried to find a Torah basis for the prohibition ? ?Do not degrade your daughter and make her a harlot, lest the land fall into harlotry and the land be filled with depravity? (Leviticus 1929). Rabbi Eliezer taught This refers to an unmarried man who comes upon an unmarried woman not for purposes of marriage.?

Rabbi Eliezer?s ruling was not accepted as the halakhah (law). After all, the Torah does permit a man to take a concubine, that is, a woman in a monogamous sexual relationship without a ketubbah (marriage contract) or the traditional kiddushin (Jewish marriage).

http//www.myjewishlearning.com/life/Sex_and_Sexuality/Premarital_Sex/Traditional_Sources.shtml

Question

Dear Rabbi,

I was wondering if you there is a condemnation of fornication in Judaism today. I know that it is condemned in the Talmud, yet not in the Torah. Yet I know many if not most of the Jews I grew up with were sleeping around before they were married. I would appreciate it. Also, do you know what Rabbinical stances are on masturbation I would like to know. Thank You, Mark

Answer

Dear Mark,

As far as fornication, the Talmud definitely condemns it. There is a story at the end of the eight chapter of the Sanhedrin treatise (BT 75a), about a man who is terribly lovesick about a woman, who is single. The rabbis won't allow him to sleep with her, but they also won't allow him to look at her naked, nor even to talk to her while she stands behind the fence. They mention that ever since the Temple was destroyed sinners are filled with lust (they quote the verse in Ecclesiasticus 9 17 about stolen waters being sweet). Judaism considers that the appropriate context for a sexual relationship is marriage. In Rabbinic times, when men started working and taking full responsibility for their lives much earlier, the rabbis recommended that the age of eighteen was the time to get married. Due to early marriages, young men and women were not prone to having sex while single, but were intimate with their spouses as part of creating a family. In such a context sex is sanctified.

In modern times, when young people tend to get married later due to study and career considerations, many of them are intimate before they get married. This does not mean that Jewish law condones such behavior. It just reflects the general behavior in Western society today.

Regarding masturbation, the codes are clear that in general male masturbation should be avoided, in order not to spill seed. For this reason, many authorities consider female masturbation less problematic. However, due to the intimate nature of these questions and the particular circumstances, each case should be broached with the local rabbinic authority

Sincerely,

Rabbi Diana Villa

http//www.schechter.edu/AskTheRabbi.aspx?ID=132

Interesting. So going beyond adultery is a Talmudic concept. It seems that Muslims followed the same route.

Bigmo