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

Mazhar

I am strongly of the belief that if members of this forum had a greater bearing on the Arabic language, then this thread would not have stretched to 70 pages.

For convenience the entry in Classical Lexicons can be seen here.

http//www.baheth.info/all.jsp?term=

Cut the Arabic word and paste it there. It will open the page.

Mazhar

Lane is here

1 , aor. , inf. n. and , (S, Mgh, * Msb, K,) the latter an inf. n. of 3 (S, Mgh, Msb, K) also, (S, Mgh, K,) but said by some to be a dial. var. of the former, (Msb,) the former being of the dial. of the people of El-Hij?z, (Lh, S, Msb, TA,) and the latter of the dial. of Benoo-Temeem, (Lh, TA,) or of the people of Nejd, (S, Msb, TA,) He committed fornication or adultery; (El-Mun?wee, Er-R?ghib, TA with her (MA but accord. to El-Mun?wee, in the proper language of the Arabs, signifies the mounting upon a thing; and in the language of the law it signifies the commission of the act first mentioned above it is syn. with and in like manner one says of a woman (TA , inf. n. , also signifies the same (TA and so does , inf. n. and (K one says of a woman, , inf. n. and , meaning . (S.) It is said in a prov., applied to him who does not remain in one state, or condition; neither in good nor in evil (Meyd or to him who refrains from doing good and then is excessive , or from evil and then is excessive therein; not continuing to pursue one way. (TA.) 2 , inf. n. , (S, Mgh, Msb, TA,) He said to him (S, TA or he imputed to him ; (Mgh, Msb, TA and so , accord. to the copies of the K; but in the M, , which, it is there said, has not been heard except in a trad. of the daughter of El- Hasan. (TA.) -A2- See also 1. -A3- And see 2 in art. . 3 , inf. n. and , (Mgh, Msb.) -b2- See also 1, in two places. -A2- And see 2. 4 see 2. , often written see the next paragraph, in two places. A single act of (Msb, TA and is dualized they say (TA thus using the dual of , the lawyers say, (Msb, TA but in the saying , or , the right word is . (Mgh.) One says also, , and sometimes , (K,) but the former is the more chaste, (Az, TA,) meaning (K or and , (Mgh, Msb,) and and , (Mgh,) with fet-h and with kesr, contr. of and , (Mgh,) or contr. of (Msb or and , contr. of and (S accord. to Fr, one says, and and , all with fet-h accord. to Ks, however, one may say and , with kesr, but only with fet-h (TA ISk says that and are both with kesr and fet-h. (Msb.) . See the next preceding paragraph, in five places. -A2- Also The last of a man's children; (K like as signifies the ? last of a woman's children. ? (TA.) see an instance of its dual voce is the rel. n. from ; (S, Msb the being changed into because three s are deemed difficult of pronunciation (Msb and the rel. n. from is . (S.) see what next precedes. an appellation applied to A female ape (&#1612. (S.) act. part. n. of (Msb fem. (Kur xxiv. 2 and 3 pl. masc. , like pl. of (Msb said to a woman is correct as being apocopated. (Mgh.) fem. of -b2- Applied to a man, it has an intensive meaning . (Mgh.)

http//www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text;jsessionid=BD548AF4D68498C98DEAA004FD78C81E?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2002.02.0025%3Aroot%3DznY

nimnimak_11

Peace all,

I am strongly of the belief that if members of this forum had a greater bearing on the Arabic language, then this thread would not have stretched to 70 pages.

Zinaa is any act of intercourse with someone to whom one is not married.

Adultery is purely incidental to the act of zinaa.

There is no word for adultery in Arabic.

It is this latter reason why Edward Lane listed "adultery" as an entry for zinaa, because it is purely incidental to the act of zinaa.

To confirm my above statements (for those who can read and understand Arabic) members are urged to refer to the entry of zinaa under the root Z-N-Y, both in Taaj Al-3aroos by Muhammad Al-Murtadhaa Al-Zabeedi, and in Lisaan Al-3arab by Jamaludeen Bin Manzoor.

I am prepared to translate the entire entry of Z-N-Y from both books if members would care for such an endeavour, I only say this because there are some significant omissions in Lane's lexicon as regards the use of this hotly debated word.

Peace uq

If the Quran's usage of zina is with regards to any sexual act outside of marriage then you are right. But when I looked at lane and the Quran, I did not get this impression. If I am wrong please correct me.

I've looked at lane before and from what I understand, zina can have different meanings am I correct?

The following are the meanings that are most relevant to sex

Adultery (sex outside of marriage)
Fornication (sex without a marriage certificate)
To mount upon a thing (I think this refers to sexual activity)

1), 2) and 3) are different things.
The Quran when discussing the punishment of zina, must be dealing with one of these things since it only specifies one punishment (as pointed out by bigmo) It is surely not the case that the Quran would assign the same level/type of punishment for three different things that are of differing moral standing. Thus the Quran must be referring to one of those three. This must be adultery.

Your suggestion is that
Adultery is purely incidental to the act of zinaa.

If that is the case, then can it not be said that fornication, adultery and to mount upon a thing are all incidental to the act of zina and thus one should not mount upon their wives?

My point is that when were are faced with three differing things and are given guidelines for only one of these three differing things, the evidence is strongly in favour that the word that is being used is only being used with one meaning in mind. So if zina means adultery or fornication or to mount upon a thing, we should look at what the Quran is trying to convey with its usage of zina.

Siki suggests that zina is an illegal mounting upon a thing since if it was the case that mounting upon a thing was punishable with 100 lashes, then married couples would be punishable for engaging in sex.

What's your take on these points?

Wakas

bigmo,

I forgot to add another one

Quran does not clarify/distinguish the situation when proven zina is done by a married person with an unmarried person, i.e. if the punishments differ, as you claim, it does not clarify/distinguish

Points 4 and 5 are significant, because they imply your view does not exist in Quran. The only way out is to say Quran omits this info and we are left to work it out ourselves - how convenient.

nimnimak_11

Peace Wakas

Quran does not clarify/distinguish the situation when proven zina is done by a married person with an unmarried person, i.e. if the punishments differ, as you claim, it does not clarify/distinguish

If it can be established that zina = adultery (and it can IMO based on Quranic evidence and Aql) then it becomes the case that there is a clear distinction. You punish the adulterer with 100 lashes but not the unmarried. This is because the unmarried cannot commit zina without being married. It may be the case that you punish the unmarried on the grounds of lewdness but not on the grounds of zina. That only happens to the adulterer and adulteress.

That is if it can be established that zina = adultery. Of course you will request Quranic evidence for why zina = adultery. The 70 pages of this thread have this. For your convenience, i've pointed out one of these proofs to you. You will find this in my last post to you.

Peace

Wakas

Nima,

I asked for your strongest point. You said

First point (not the strongest, there are other equally strong points) But better to get them out of the way one by one.

Point 1

At 235-6, we are told that we can un-guard our private parts to the zawj or the MMA. This implies that we can have sex with the zawj or the MMA. If it does not imply this, then defend yourself by explaining what you understand of this. If there is implication of being able to have sex with the MMA, then there is proof that zina does not mean fornication.

Firstly, you have assumed without presenting evidence that unguard their "furooj" means sex. Your so-called "strong point" has an in-built flaw from the get-go. Please note that nowhere in Quran does it use unguard their/your "furooj" to mean sex or sexual touching/activity, it uses other words, e.g. see 2187 and others. You would have to prove your implied meaning first.

Secondly, see Asad's notes

Lit., "or those whom their right hands possess" (aw ma malakat aymanuhum). Many of the commentators assume unquestioningly that this relates to female slaves, and that the particle aw ("or&quot denotes a permissible alternative. This interpretation is, in my opinion, inadmissible inasmuch as it is based on the assumption that sexual intercourse with ones female slave is permitted without marriage an assumption, which is contradicted by the Qur'an itself (see 43, 24, 25 and 2432, with the corresponding notes). Nor is this the only objection to the above-mentioned interpretation. Since the Qur'an applies the term ''believers" to men and women alike, and since the term azwaj ("spouses&quot, too, denotes both the male and the female partners in marriage, there is no reason for attributing to the phrase ma malakat aymanuhum the meaning of "their female slaves''; and since, on the other hand, it is out of the question that female and male slaves could have been referred to here it is obvious that this phrase does not relate to slaves at all, but has the same meaning as in 424 - namely, "those whom they rightfully possess through wedlock (see note 26 on 424) - with the significant difference that in the present context this expression relates to both husbands and wives, who "rightfully possess" one another by virtue of marriage. On the basis of this interpretation, the particle aw which precedes this clause does not denote an alternative ("or&quot but is, rather, in the nature of an explanatory amplification, more or less analogous to the phrase "in other words" or "that is", thus giving to the whole sentence the meaning, "save with their spouses - that is, those whom they rightfully possess ", etc. (Cf. a similar construction 2562 - ''for him who has the will to take thought -that is , has the will to be grateful".)

Not that I necessarily agree with them on the "aw" (or) aspect.

Thirdly, let us see Quran says about MMA and if sex is permissible with them or not

And whoever of you cannot afford to marry the independent believing women, then from those MMA of the believing maidens. God is more aware of your faith, you are to each other (i.e. equal). You shall marry them with the permission of their guardians and give them their dowries in kindness; they should be chaste not those who commit immorality/lewdness** and not those who take (secret) lovers. Then when they become protected/married, then any of them who comes with immorality/lewdness/indecency shall have half the punishment of what is for the independent women. This is for those who fear hardship from among you. But if you are patient it is better for you, and God is Forgiver, Merciful.
*bold and underline is feminine plural.

Also see 424 when similar phrasing is used for men seeking marriage ".....(desiring) to be protected/married, not to be immoral/lewd/indecent**..." - masculine plural.

And for believers who wish to marry believing women of the book/decree see 55 "...being protected/married not being lewd/immoral/lewd** and not ones who take (secret) lovers...." - masculine plural.

**Siin-Fa-Ha = from PRL musafihun - one who commits fornication or adultery

If you disagree, let us all see how you twist these terms. Over to you, to defend your so-called "strong point" or will you admit you are likely wrong?

Wakas

I also just noticed something

"...then any of them who comes with immorality/lewdness/indecency (Arabic "fahisha", root Fa-Ha-Shiin) shall have half the punishment of what is for the independent women. ..."

This is significant because it uses the term "fahisha" and if those who think "zina" means "adultery" only, thus think the unmarried person would be tried under "fahisha" laws, then they will have to explain what half is.

;D This should be interesting. Please let us know bigmo, nima, emil, others who have this view.

And in case this is not obvious, I am referring to this situation sex in front of 4 witnesses between married person and unmarried person.

Please explain for all to see, or admit you are likely wrong.

nimnimak_11

Peace Wakas

I asked for your strongest point.

When there are equally strong points, I cannot give you my strongest point. I can only give you one of the equally strong points.

Over to you, to defend your so-called "strong point"

Thanks. I will defend one of my equally strong points where in which together, these points present a coherent solution to our notions of the MMA and the unguarding of the private parts (I think).

Firstly, you have assumed without presenting evidence that unguard their "furooj" means sex.

1)Are we in agreement that nothing is prohibited unless stated/implied by verses or Aql? If yes then Question 2...
2) What is the clearest restriction on sexual activity in the Quran? IMO 235-6 is one. Here evidently sexual activity is restricted to two categories since one cannot have sex without unguarding their private parts. There are also other explicit restrictions such as fahisha, zina, the waiting periods and 2237. There are no other restrictions. AFAIK

This means That one can have sex with the MMA provided that they are doing so within those restrictions. If the Quran wanted to restrict sex to marriage, why would it allow us to unguard our private parts to the MMA? Why would the MMA and the zawj be the only exclusive category rather than the zawj alone?

Your objection might be that by using the term zina at 242-3, the Quran effectively rules out sex with anyone other than spouses.
My defence to this would be
The following are the meanings of zina that are most relevant to sex

Adultery (sex outside of marriage) 2) Fornication (sex without a marriage certificate) 3) To mount upon a thing

1), 2) and 3) are different things.
The Quran when discussing the punishment of zina, must be dealing with one of these things since it only specifies one punishment (as pointed out by bigmo) It is surely not the case that the Quran would assign the same level/type of punishment for three different things that are of differing moral standing. Thus the Quran must be referring to one of those three. This must be adultery (based on Aql)

It is your point that zina means two things at the same time (fornication and adultery). Why not three things at the same time? In other words why don't we just take zina as adultery, fornication and mounting upon a thing since adultery and fornication are incidental to mounting upon a thing. The issue with that is that this would imply that we lash a married couple 100 times every time we (more than 4 of us) find out that they are pregnant or have had sex.

You may respond that there are implications of sexual activity with the zawj. My response would be that there are implications of sexual activity with the MMA. This then just leaves adultery from the possible meanings of zina.

Secondly, see Asad's notes

Not that I necessarily agree with them on the "aw" (or) aspect.

Earlier in the thread (around page 55ish I think) SarahY posted the exact same thing. I can repeat my defence but you have not explicitly said whether you acknolwledge Asad's POV. If you agree with him, let me know with which one of his points and I will point out what I believe are problems in his understanding.

And whoever of you cannot afford to marry the independent believing women, then from those MMA of the believing maidens. God is more aware of your faith, you are to each other (i.e. equal). You shall marry them with the permission of their guardians and give them their dowries in kindness; they should be chaste not those who commit immorality/lewdness** and not those who take (secret) lovers. Then when they become protected/married, then any of them who comes with immorality/lewdness/indecency shall have half the punishment of what is for the independent women. This is for those who fear hardship from among you. But if you are patient it is better for you, and God is Forgiver, Merciful.
*bold and underline is feminine plural.

Also see 424 when similar phrasing is used for men seeking marriage ".....(desiring) to be protected/married, not to be immoral/lewd/indecent**..." - masculine plural.

And for believers who wish to marry believing women of the book/decree see 55 "...being protected/married not being lewd/immoral/lewd** and not ones who take (secret) lovers...." - masculine plural.

**Siin-Fa-Ha = from PRL musafihun - one who commits fornication or adultery

423-25. In short, from what has been discussed

The muhsinat women are prohibted for marriage unless they are MMA. Thus we cannot marry the muhsinat unless they are/become MMA. Then we are told that permitted to us is what is beyond this. After this we are told that if we can't marry the believing muhsinat, then we marry from the believeing fatayat MMA. Implications of this is that it is recommended that we marry the mushinat but that if we can't then we marry the fatayat. Either way it appears that if we marry, we should marry MMA (Please note that I am discussing the occurrence of fatayat MMA in another thread and my view on this could changed based on that discussion)

Muhsinat and fatayat are obviously related. That which best connects the two are independent/dependent or protected/young.
As for those seeking to be muhsanatin and muhsineena, it depends on what you mean by chaste. I've understood it to mean independent since one important aspect of marriage is enhanced depth and breadth of independence. This also makes sense with regards to the fatayat seeking to be muhsineena or muhsanatin. They are dependent thus they become independent.
It also makes sense that you ask the permission of the parents of those who are dependent but not those who are independent.

As for
Siin-Fa-Ha

424-25 are verses about those intending to marry. Those who marry should desire/seek with their amwalikum to be muhsinina (independent) as opposed to just for sex. That is my take of 424-25

Thus whilst one can approach a relationship purely for sex, one cannot approach a marriage purely for sex as suggested by 424.

Peace

nimnimak_11

I also just noticed something

"...then any of them who comes with immorality/lewdness/indecency (Arabic "fahisha", root Fa-Ha-Shiin) shall have half the punishment of what is for the independent women. ..."

This is significant because it uses the term "fahisha" and if those who think "zina" means "adultery" only, thus think the unmarried person would be tried under "fahisha" laws, then they will have to explain what half is.

;D This should be interesting. Please let us know bigmo, nima, emil, others who have this view.

And in case this is not obvious, I am referring to this situation sex in front of 4 witnesses between married person and unmarried person.

Please explain for all to see, or admit you are likely wrong.

It depends on whether you can prove the unmarried person as committing fahisha. If you can, then you punish them. If you can't, you don't punish them. If they are fatayat, you give them half the punishment. If they are muhsinat, you give them the full punishment. This applies to all cases of fahisha. Not just adultery (that is encompassed by fahisha).

Emphasis is on the bold. Has that answered your question?

Bigmo

bigmo,

I forgot to add another one

Quran does not clarify/distinguish the situation when proven zina is done by a married person with an unmarried person, i.e. if the punishments differ, as you claim, it does not clarify/distinguish

Points 4 and 5 are significant, because they imply your view does not exist in Quran. The only way out is to say Quran omits this info and we are left to work it out ourselves - how convenient.

I have said before that the punishment for adultery in the Quran is symbolic, its not designed to be implimented as much as its designed to make a point of the magnitude of the sin. Its slandering the Quran designed for punishment since its four times easier for a slanderer to get punished than an adulterer. Like Moses when he ordered the Israelites to take their lives as a punishment for worshiping the calf. They of course couldn't and God forgave them. Its not practical to expect people to kill themsleves. But it symbolizes the magnitude of the sin in God's eyes. Its slandering the Quran was trying to eleminate by making it very hard for any person (even if he saw adultery) to open his mouth since he needs three witnesses.

Most people will lie to avoid being lashed anyways. People will easily swear they did not when facing the whip. God forgives those who proclaim their disbelief when being tortured so how can God expect an adulter not to lie to avoid being tormented. 100 lashes is not a joke. So the hypotheical scenario you brought up is not really relevant because it will never really be a legal issue for us to solve.

Bigmo

I agree. How can there be two different moral acts that are of different moral standings, be dealt the same level of punishment? I think it's unjust and doubt that it can be proved to be just. Injustice is contrary to the Quran's teachings.

Even if we say that there is this woman who knowingly sleeps with a married man, the man is an adulterer whilst the woman is not. The man is punishable by the law since he agreed to/proposed marriage, thus having marriage commitments whilst the woman (despite knowingly sleeping with the man) is not punishable by the law because she did not agree to/propose marriage commitments. Thus she has not wronged anyone whom she has agreed marriage commitments to.

She has certainly committed a disgusting and wrong moral act and she certainly plays an important part in the hardship that will befall the wife of the married adulterer but she is not punishable by the law since under the law, she has not wronged anyone simply because she was not married. Her punishment is with God. But if the husband rejects this woman who is tempting her and proves that she is sexually harassing or seducing him, then she can be punished on the grounds of lewdness IMO but never on zina.

This is just like a woman who knowingly deceives a married man into falling for her and then advises him to divorce his wife (who suffers because of this other woman's excellent deceptive skills) and marry her only to divorce him and gain wealth from such deception.

The cases are the same. Both have done morally terrible actions. Yet both of them cannot be punished by the law since they didn't do anything illegal. Their punishment is with the God.

I think whats happening here is that their is a fear that if we say Zina means adultery that means fornification, homosexuality, pornography, prostitution, mastrubation etc are all ok. So one way to solve this is to define Zina as sex outside of marriage then all those acts can be now seen as not ok. This is exactly what Jewish authorities did because of this fear that there will be laxity when it comes to sexual activity so they added fornification as a major sin to protect that family's reputation. Now we have honor killings mostly because of charges of even rumors of fornification by a woman.

siki

Salam

ZINA

public display of sexual act is very grave in GOD's eyes and is punishable even if the sex is legal 24-2,3 (sexual mounting witnessed by at least 4 people)

Adultry is dealt in 24-6 to 9

In Adultery there is a hurt party , a ZOAJ, who being the nearest could be aware of a foul activity, but may not be able to produce additional witnesses.

There is procedure outlined in, 24-6 to 9, and society is to take appropriate action which could be their separation if she/he does not want to be with the spouse anymore because of betrayal (or any other action if the socity has formulated some laws/punishments to deal with such activites)

And if the blamed party lies, to avoid separtion or a punishment (24- it becomes God's business. And if it is a false accusation, it again becomes GOD"s business.( 24-7)

see, 24-6 onward , it is accusation, not accusation for Zina, , nor is accusation defined.
As she/he may have become aware of/witnessed some kind of illicit sexual activity of his spouse and that may be is enough for her/him to call off a relationship.

Fornication

Fornication ( illegal sexual mounting) is not singled out , but is dealt under Fahishats, which could be all kind of illegal sexual acts up to fornication.

This is dealt under 4-15,

If there are 4 reporting that a certain woman is up to some illicit/illegal sexual activity, source is to be capped ( house arrest till she dies)

OR,

GOD will handle it, if GOD finds that her behaviour/state of mind has improved and she is not likely to divulge into any such activity anymore. HE (GOD) will arrange for her freedom. (4-15)

Again , There is no Zina here .

peace

siki

SarahY

Peace everyone

Going back to the main argument

whether you think zina is adultery only, whether it encompassing fornication or other things or if fahisha is sexual stuff and fornication.

Whatever the belief is, the Quran says to stay away from it because of that i can not understand how sex before marriage is ok.

and of course everyone has a free choice, a free will. people lie, do and go about things unpunished whatever it may be. We're not GOD, inevitably God will deal with them.

Though we'd like to be the khulafa of Allah on the earth, if muslims of like minds were in power. how would such rulings get executed? it can be tough esp because emotions can get involved. but regardless of us having power or not. a believer invites the other believer to good. in my personal opinion there isn't clear evidence that sex is ok before marriage so i would say to a believer not do it, to refrain from it.

anyway one point about fornication. sure it's not the same as adultery as it does not harm another person. i.e. person being cheated on. However, fornication can bring about children. casual sex can pregnant someone. other moral issues can evolve from it i.e. spread STDs, abortion, father leaves who cares/supports the baby? just because fornication isn't cheating on another person it doesn't mean it is necessary free from problems, and those problems can affect society. just thought i'd say that

in the end, God knows best.

salam.

Wakas

Nima,

Thanks for replying. Now, let us determine your response

You said
1)Are we in agreement that nothing is prohibited unless stated/implied by verses or Aql? If yes then Question 2...

Yes, I agree.

You said

This means That one can have sex with the MMA provided that they are doing so within those restrictions. If the Quran wanted to restrict sex to marriage, why would it allow us to unguard our private parts to the MMA?

You provided no evidence whatsoever that to unguard furooj means sex. Zero.

MMA, as I already said, and can be seen from several verses, e.g. 2431, can be servants/slaves, as well as potentially doctors/surgeons in my view, thus servants/slaves usually live near or in one's house, so they may well see their owner undressed or exposed sometimes. You seem to not consider this rather obvious possibility.

Let me repeat
You provided no evidence whatsoever that to unguard furooj means sex. Zero.

You want us to believe Quran uses a word it never uses to mean sex, instead of using other words that more clearly refer to sex or sexual touching/activity, which it has used multiple times.

How convenient.

You said

1), 2) and 3) are different things......

You would like it to be 3 different things, but has it escaped your thinking that some Arabic words do not have an equivalent in English. This is the case with many languages. One can use "illicit/illegal sex" if one wishes. uq already gave you the meaning of the word "zina".
And "to mount upon a thing" is the basic verb meaning, from which the other meanings stem. This is common in roots and derived words from that root.

To sum up, as I have already proven, you (or anyone else) cannot provide any classical Arabic dictionary evidence that it exclusively means adultery.

Lane's Lexison
zina = when you do A or B
In other words, do A it is zina, do B it is zina, i.e. both. It's so simple to understand.

You now claim

muhsanatin and muhsineena, it depends on what you mean by chaste. I've understood it to mean independent since one important aspect of marriage is enhanced depth and breadth of independence. This also makes sense with regards to the fatayat seeking to be muhsineena or muhsanatin. They are dependent thus they become independent.

Unfortunately, since you know very little Arabic, making points related to Arabic is tricky for you to understand. So let me explain

In 425 the MMA should "be chaste not those who commit immorality/lewdness** and not those who take (secret) lovers. "

The problem for you and anyone who has your view is that "be chaste" (mu'antin) above is passive participle, i.e. they received the action expressed by the verb. Thus, if you select "independent" you will have to claim they are "independent" prior to getting married, which is a contradiction. Please ask anyone who knows Arabic grammar.

You claim a meaning of "independence" yet provide no proof. Secondly, you then claim when one is married one is more independent, without evidence or sound reasoning of course.

Re 424 and 55
You conveniently skip some critical parts.

You claim

424-25 are verses about those intending to marry. Those who marry should desire/seek with their amwalikum to be muhsinina (independent) as opposed to just for sex. That is my take of 424-25

So one who has wealth (clearly implying independent) should marry to.... erm.... be more independent? Does not make sense. In fact, you imply when one is unmarried they are using their wealth to engage in sex, meaning they have choices, implying more independence, not the other way around. This problem in your view is for you to resolve.

You conveniently skip any mention of the other words Siin-Fa-Ha and "not taking (secret) lovers"
Likely because you cannot reconcile this usage with your view.

So let me remind you and for all to see

MMA should be chaste not those who commit immorality/lewdness** and not those who take (secret) lovers...

men seeking marriage ".....(desiring) to be protected/married, not to be immoral/lewd/indecent**..."

believers who wish to marry believing women of the book/decree see 55 "...being protected/married not being lewd/immoral/lewd** and not ones who take (secret) lovers...." - masculine plural.

**Siin-Fa-Ha = from PRL musafihun - one who commits fornication or adultery

Wakas

Nima said

If you can, then you punish them. If you can't, you don't punish them. If they are fatayat, you give them half the punishment. If they are muhsinat, you give them the full punishment. This applies to all cases of fahisha. Not just adultery (that is encompassed by fahisha).

So, tell us what is half and what is full, as per Quran and your view.

huruf

Peace everyone

Going back to the main argument

whether you think zina is adultery only, whether it encompassing fornication or other things or if fahisha is sexual stuff and fornication.

Whatever the belief is, the Quran says to stay away from it because of that i can not understand how sex before marriage is ok.

and of course everyone has a free choice, a free will. people lie, do and go about things unpunished whatever it may be. We're not GOD, inevitably God will deal with them.

Though we'd like to be the khulafa of Allah on the earth, if muslims of like minds were in power. how would such rulings get executed? it can be tough esp because emotions can get involved. but regardless of us having power or not. a believer invites the other believer to good. in my personal opinion there isn't clear evidence that sex is ok before marriage so i would say to a believer not do it, to refrain from it.

anyway one point about fornication. sure it's not the same as adultery as it does not harm another person. i.e. person being cheated on. However, fornication can bring about children. casual sex can pregnant someone. other moral issues can evolve from it i.e. spread STDs, abortion, father leaves who cares/supports the baby? just because fornication isn't cheating on another person it doesn't mean it is necessary free from problems, and those problems can affect society. just thought i'd say that

in the end, God knows best.

salam.

Yes indeed, keep away from it.

Other than that I do think that it is the splitting of marriage and sex wherein lies the cardinal sin.

Sex before marriage?

In fact sex should be the marriage. In fact in Arabic nkH that is what it is. This sinful divorce of marriage ans sex is what lies at the bottom of the whole mischief.

We are not granted permission by God to do such splitting.

Sex is not a toy, is the holy means of our perpetuation. Too bad we get into this dilemmas of sex out, before, or whatever marriage That is the source of the trouble.

I think in fact the Qur'an by using nkH for marriage and sex and setting the conditions what is telling us is not to conceal it, make it known, let the fact be public so that whatever derives from it can be attented to and taken into account for all purposes.

Salaam

Bigmo

MMA is urfi marriages. Marriages done without dowry or even informing the family or public but they are based only on a mutual agreement and oath. The Quran recognizes this but does not encourage it since it leaves the women open for abuse. This has been a problem in many such marraies in Arab countries and elsewhere.

Those who say its slaves and yet have a problem with fornification tells me that their real problem is not morality but freedom. They are against consensual sex but have no problem with forced sex.

IAMOP

MMA is urfi marriages. Marriages done without dowry or even informing the family or public but they are based only on a mutual agreement and oath. The Quran recognizes this but does not encourage it since it leaves the women open for abuse. This has been a problem in many such marraies in Arab countries and elsewhere.

Those who say its slaves and yet have a problem with fornification tells me that their real problem is not morality but freedom. They are against consensual sex but have no problem with forced sex.

How do you understand that? Currently I get the impression that sex is ONLY within marriages and people involved with marriage. E.g. a man is divorcing his wife and is in the waiting period. They are allowed to have sex, the wife is still MMA to him. After the waiting period she is no longer MMA and they are no longer allowed without marrying once more.

Bigmo

How do you understand that? Currently I get the impression that sex is ONLY within marriages and people involved with marriage. E.g. a man is divorcing his wife and is in the waiting period. They are allowed to have sex, the wife is still MMA to him. After the waiting period she is no longer MMA and they are no longer allowed without marrying once more.

Many prophets in the OT had concubines, which is basically a marraige without dowry. The Quran when talking about elevating MMA to a wife talked about giving them dowries and informing their families, the very two things that is not required for a concubine. Only Islamic sources attach concubines with slaves. In fact Islamic sources attach slavery with female prisoners. In Arabic countries concubines are kown a urfi marraiges where a man and women make an oath without dowry or financial arrangements and many times it is done without public knowledge. Often this leads to abuse, as the Quran warns.

And whoever among you cannot the means to marry chaste women, then from those whom your right hands possess of believing girls. And Allah is most knowing about your faith. You are of one another. So marry them with the permission of their people and give them their due compensation according to what is acceptable. chaste, neither those who commit unlawful intercourse randomly nor those who take lovers. But once they are sheltered in marriage, if they should commit adultery, then for them is half the punishment for chaste women. This is for him among you who fears sin, but to be patient is better for you. And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. 4.25

Among the Israelites, men commonly acknowledged their concubines, and such women enjoyed the same rights in the house as legitimate wives. The principal difference in the Bible between a wife and a concubine is that wives had dowries, while concubines did not.

The concubine may have commanded the same respect and inviolability as the wife. The Hebrew word used in the Levitical rules on sexual relations, which is commonly translated as "wife", is distinct from the Hebrew word that means "concubine". (However, on at least one other occasion it is used to refer a woman who is not a wife - specifically, the handmaid of Jacob's wife.) In the Levitical code, sexual intercourse between a man and a wife of a different man was forbidden and punishable by death for both persons involved. The Bible notes several incidents of intercourse between a man and another man's concubine, and none of them result in capital punishment for either party, although the man to whom the concubine belonged was dishonored by such a relationship. For instance, David is portrayed as having been dishonoured when his concubines had a sexual relationship with his son Absalom. However, this instance is as likely dishonoring to David because it involves a form of incest, as David's concubines would have been somewhat like step-mothers to David's children.

Since it was regarded as the highest blessing to have many children, legitimate wives often gave their maids to their husbands to atone, at least in part, if they were barren, as in the cases of Sarah and Hagar, Rachel and Bilhah. The children of the concubine had equal rights with those of the legitimate wife; for example, King Abimelech was the son of Gideon and his concubine. Later biblical figures such as Gideon, David, and Solomon had concubines in addition to many childbearing wives. For example, the Books of Kings says that Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.

In Judaism

In Judaism, concubines are referred to by the Hebrew term pilegesh. The term is a non-Hebrew, non-Semitic loanword derived from the Greek word, pallakis, Greek , meaning "a mistress staying in house".

According to the Babylonian Talmud, the difference between a concubine and a full wife was that the latter received a marriage contract (Hebrewketubah) and her marriage (nissu'in) was preceded by a formal betrothal (erusin), neither being the case for a concubine. But, one opinion in the Jerusalem Talmud argues that the concubine should also receive a marriage contract, but without including a clause specifying a divorce settlement.

http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concubinage

Many prophets like Abraham, David, Solomon had concubines as well as wives. The only difference was the dowry and engagement. Exactly the case with urfi marriages.

Nikah 'urfi is a kind of Muslim marriage. It is similar to the Nikah ceremony. An 'urfi marriage is a marriage without an official contract. Couples repeat the words, "We got married" and pledge commitment before God. Usually a paper, stating that the two are married, is written and two witnesses sign it. Most Islamic countries do not recognize 'Urfi marriages and no partner can get a 'legal' divorce since the government does not recognize the legality of the marriage in the first place.

http//www.islamawareness.net/Marriage/Urfi/urfi3.html

It is exactly what the Quran talks about. Many times concubines are a cover for sex and since their is no legal protection or financial obligation the man can deny he even married the girl. So it fits the Quranic verses perfectly and is a prophetic tradition.

nimnimak_11

I think whats happening here is that their is a fear that if we say Zina means adultery that means fornification, homosexuality, pornography, prostitution, mastrubation etc are all ok. So one way to solve this is to define Zina as sex outside of marriage then all those acts can be now seen as not ok. This is exactly what Jewish authorities did because of this fear that there will be laxity when it comes to sexual activity so they added fornification as a major sin to protect that family's reputation. Now we have honor killings mostly because of charges of even rumors of fornification by a woman.

I think that is the problem also. But the fear is unfounded IMO. Fahisha is still a clear restriction.