How sex before Marriage is not haram (prohibited) according to the Quran
-
Peace Wakas
Thanks for replying. Now, let us determine your response
Your welcome. Now let us assess your response
You provided no evidence whatsoever that to unguard furooj means sex. Zero
You agreed that nothing is prohibited unless stated.
Ungarding the furooj does not mean to have sex nor did I say this. Having sex is amongst the things that one does by ungarding their private parts. The restriction of who we can unguard our private parts have been narrowed to the MMA and the zawj.
If it is your claim that we cannot engage in sexual activity with the MMA, then the burden of proof is upon you. You must show that there are restrictions conveying how much, in what way and when one can ungaurd their private parts to the MMA.Again I don't have to prove that ungaurding the private parts means sex. If you find further restrictions on the MMA, then you can argue that one cannot unguard their private parts to the MMA like they can to their zawj.
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.
It appears that in addition to missing much of the thread, you are also philosophically not grasping what I'm conveying. You've clearly misunderstood my point. See the above. and before you make conclusions, let me respond first.
To sum up, as I have already proven, you (or anyone else) cannot provide any classical Arabic dictionary evidence that it exclusively means adultery.
Ok. Agreed provided that there are others cases of illegal sexual acts in addition to adultery that bear equal level of moral wrongness. Surely you don't think that two acts where one act is worse than another should receive the same punishment? What proof do you have of fornication being illegal?
you will have to claim they are "independent" prior to getting married, which is a contradiction.
I do not agree. I believe the term muhsineena, muhsinat and other like occurences of the root, must all convey the same meaning at 424-25. This is because (here comes the evidence, before you jump to nyma has not provided evidence) they all occur in the same context and in back to back verses 424-25. If you can find a better meaning other than independent that is consistent in that verse, then good it will contribute to figuring this out.
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.
Firstly one who has wealth does not clearly imply independent. IMO no matter how wealthy one is, they are not independent until they have successfully attained certain character attributes such as wisdom and how to live alone are prime examples.
There is no doubt in my mind that there are varying degrees of independence. From character traits, to living status. One may be a muhsinat based on character traits alone. If they then live alone, their independence is furthered is it not? Marriage is a commitment that surely furthers one's independence. To say that one becomes independent and that they cannot add to the depth and bredth of their independence is contrary to reason IMO.
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.I did not. Look at my last post to you. If you disagree with the point I make there, then say why, I will then respond. But let me respond first, and let the discussion finish before you jump to conclusions and assume things about your opposition.
-
Nima said
So, tell us what is half and what is full, as per Quran and your view.
I've already done this
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).Has this answered your question? If not please specify.
-
Nima,
unguard simply means to uncover or leave it exposed/open, does not mean something is done with it or used etc. If someone says "you left the door unguarded" does that mean people did something to the door or used it? No.
I do not agree. I believe the term muhsineena, muhsinat and other like occurences of the root, must all convey the same meaning at 424-25. This is because (here comes the evidence, before you jump to nyma has not provided evidence) they all occur in the same context and in back to back verses 424-25.
Spoken like a person who has no clue about Arabic and how passive word forms work. Interestingly, you made no comment about that point, either implying you do not understand it or you have no response. Simple.
I said
You conveniently skip any mention of the other words Siin-Fa-Ha and "not taking (secret) lovers"
You said
I did not. Look at my last post to you. If you disagree with the point I make there, then say why, I will then respond.
Referring to when you said this
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.Firstly, MMA do not have amwali in 424-25 but it is said about them
MMA should be chaste not those who commit immorality/lewdness** and not those who take (secret) lovers...Secondly, in 55 it says nothing about amwali
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...."Thirdly, you indirectly admit that on one hand Quran says when it comes to marriage do not be of those who XYZ, clearly implying XYZ is negative, yet you seem to think it is fine.
-
I've already done this
Has this answered your question? If not please specify.No it does not answer my question. I was perfectly clear in what I asked.
According to your reading of Quran what is half and what is full punishment for proven fahisha.
Here is a hint, fahisha and punishment is discussed in 415-16. Wherever and whatever you think the punishment for fahisha is, tell us what is half. And back it up with Quran verses. -
And lastly, as it seems to have escaped you, even though I made it bold and red
MMA should be chaste not those who commit immorality/lewdness** and not those who take (secret) lovers...
believers who wish to marry believing women of the book/decree see 55 "...being protected/married not being immoral/lewd** and not ones who take (secret) lovers...."
Note the underlined part. We are told not to be ones who take (secret) lovers - this is prior to marriage, ergo, no lovers prior to marriage. Simple.
-
And lastly, as it seems to have escaped you, even though I made it bold and red
MMA should be chaste not those who commit immorality/lewdness** and not those who take (secret) lovers...
believers who wish to marry believing women of the book/decree see 55 "...being protected/married not being immoral/lewd** and not ones who take (secret) lovers...."
Note the underlined part. We are told not to be ones who take (secret) lovers - this is prior to marriage, ergo, no lovers prior to marriage. Simple.
MMA for me is a concubine and she should get half the punishment than a regular wife would get. This is of course symbolic as I said. What the Quran ended up doing is recomending they remain in their homes.
What is MMA for you?
-
Wakas
unguard simply means to uncover or leave it exposed/open,
I will have to repeat myself. Here is what I wrote in my last post to you word for word but in a numbered structure
- "Ungarding the furooj does not mean to have sex nor did I say this."
- "Having sex is amongst the things that one does by ungarding their private parts.
- The restriction of who we can unguard our private parts have been narrowed to the MMA and the zawj.
- If it is your claim that we cannot engage in sexual activity with the MMA, then the burden of proof is upon you. You must show that there are restrictions conveying how much, in what way and when one can ungaurd their private parts to the MMA
you made no comment about that point, either implying you do not understand it or you have no response. Simple.
I think you'l find that I did. Go back and check.
Firstly, MMA do not have amwali in 424-25 but it is said about them
Secondly, in 55 it says nothing about amwali
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...."And the word amwali has also not been in 236. Hence we don't know whether the MMA have amwali or not. Some may have it some may not.
Thirdly, you indirectly admit that on one hand Quran says when it comes to marriage do not be of those who XYZ, clearly implying XYZ is negative, yet you seem to think it is fine.
Again discussed in the thread. For your convenience
No one who uses their aql would approach marriage (a life-long commitment to one partner) with sex on their minds (this is further made clear at 424-25). In other words getting married for sex (i.e she is good at this...I will marry her/ I really want to sleep with her...I will marry her) is incredibly foolish. This has no bearing on whether one has sex with their unmarried partner or not.Peace
-
No it does not answer my question. I was perfectly clear in what I asked.
According to your reading of Quran what is half and what is full punishment for proven fahisha.
If they are fatayat and they commit a fahisha, they get half the punishment that a muhsinat would get.
Here is a hint, fahisha and punishment is discussed in 415-16. Wherever and whatever you think the punishment for fahisha is, tell us what is half. And back it up with Quran verses.
I will respond to you with the equivalent level of beneficence you've shown in your replies to me. I have an answer, yet it would be (as you put it) "me doing your homework for you". You are the one who is trying to prove that fornication is illegal. If you believe that this point is evidence supporting this, you need to explain it. Not ask questions about it.
-
And lastly, as it seems to have escaped you, even though I made it bold and red
MMA should be chaste not those who commit immorality/lewdness** and not those who take (secret) lovers...
believers who wish to marry believing women of the book/decree see 55 "...being protected/married not being immoral/lewd** and not ones who take (secret) lovers...."
If I was going to marry my muhsinat girlfriend, I'd hope to God that she is not of those who commit immorality/lewdness or of those who take secret lovers. I would do everything I can to make sure that she has no such character traits before marrying her.
Note the underlined part. We are told not to be ones who take (secret) lovers - this is prior to marriage, ergo, no lovers prior to marriage. Simple.
What I notice is your convenient alternation between (secret) lover and lover. You got any evidence to back up the meaning of that word (such as lane) I say this because you are using this as evidence that there are restrictions on sex with the MMA. Thus you need to prove that akhdan = lovers or secret lovers. Thus sources.
Either way
You might also want to take notice of some logic.
If you take akhdan to mean lovers, then it would mean that anyone who has had a lover is impermissible for marriage. This means that any previously married women (assuming that their spouse was their lover) is impermissible for marriage. This is obviously problematic.Have you any other evidence for the restriction of sex to just marriage?
-
Have you any other evidence for the restriction of sex to just marriage?
425 not mu-s-a-f-h-a-t
Siin-Fa-Ha = musafihun - one who commits fornication or adultery, take unlawfully (women).
LL, V4, p 93 http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume4/00000093.pdf
425 and not who take in secrecy
Kh-Dal-Nun = To befriend, keep company, associate in secrecy or privacy, to converse/talk with.
akhdan n.m. (pl. of khidn) 425, 55
LL, V2, p 348 http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume2/00000348.pdf
-
To prevent (or at least limit) digression, I think that all members should construct their posts in the form of numbered points; this way, retorts can be made in an ordered fashion.
Nyma, in your above response to my post there were a couple of issues raised, I address them below
-
Edward Lane?s lexicon as stated, there is no word in the Classical Arabic language for adultery. Intercourse with a person to whom you are not married is termed ?zinaa? in Classical Arabic, irrespective of the marital status of either party. It is only by the English term ?adultery? that the distinction of marital status is made. Now, the following point is very important the definition of the Arabic term ?zinaa?, through sheer chance, just happened to cover the definitions of both English terms ?fornication? and ?adultery?, because ?zinaa? is implicit in both. It is for this very reason that Lane listed ?adultery? in his lexicon as an entry for ?zinaa?. Lane didn?t mean for ?adultery? to be an independent entry, but rather, as an incidental consequence of the original meaning. I apologise if that sounds convoluted, but this is a very technical issue, and an extremely sensitive one at that.
-
Choice in meaning supposing that zinaa could have additional unrelated meanings such as ?mounting? and the like, then the context of the sentence ? indeed, of the discussion at large ? should provide the specificity necessary for the meaning intended.
Point 2 is irrelevant in my view, for as far as I have gathered about this thread, it is not the choice in meaning that is being here contested, but the very meaning of the word itself.
To summarise, zinaa is intercourse with someone to whom you are not married, invariably.
-
-
Nima,
Why are you running away? Is it a fear of being refuted? Is it better to correct oneself in this life or have it forced upon one in the next?
Despite having asked you 3 separate times, you have refused to answer my simple question. And only you can answer it since it relates to how you're understanding Quran with your view.
So let me repeat for a 4th time
According to your reading of Quran what is half and what is full punishment for proven fahisha, e.g. 4 witnesses upon sex between a married person and unmarried person.
Forum Readers
For readers, the reason I ask this is because nima (and anyone who shares his view) says that "zina" means "adultery" only, thus the unmarried person would be tried under "fahisha" not "zina", but according to 415-16 the punishment for proven "fahisha" is being detained in the houses, i.e. house-arrest. And we know from 425 that the punishment for proven fahisha by MMA is half of muhisanat women (which he says means "independent" - so what is half of house-arrest?As you can probably deduce, nima et al are stuck, trapped by a logical consequence of their position. There are only 3 options
- nima et al do not understand my point (even though it is relatively simple) thus are unable to answer - at no point has he said he does not understand my question, thus this option seems unlikely.
- nima understands my point perfectly but has no answer and does not wish to say so - only he/God knows why but I'm sure you can work out why.
- nima has an answer to my question but is running away from answering despite being asked 3 times - only he/God knows why but I'm sure you can work out why.
(2) and (3) are very damaging to nima's credibility - so I will let forum readers decide for themselves if he does not answer.
Nun and uq - thanks for the additional information. The info that you cite is easily available for anyone who can actually be bothered to research this issue - some will not be bothered to research but still insist they are correct etc.
-
To prevent (or at least limit) digression, I think that all members should construct their posts in the form of numbered points; this way, retorts can be made in an ordered fashion.
Nyma, in your above response to my post there were a couple of issues raised, I address them below
-
Edward Lane?s lexicon as stated, there is no word in the Classical Arabic language for adultery. Intercourse with a person to whom you are not married is termed ?zinaa? in Classical Arabic, irrespective of the marital status of either party. It is only by the English term ?adultery? that the distinction of marital status is made. Now, the following point is very important the definition of the Arabic term ?zinaa?, through sheer chance, just happened to cover the definitions of both English terms ?fornication? and ?adultery?, because ?zinaa? is implicit in both. It is for this very reason that Lane listed ?adultery? in his lexicon as an entry for ?zinaa?. Lane didn?t mean for ?adultery? to be an independent entry, but rather, as an incidental consequence of the original meaning. I apologise if that sounds convoluted, but this is a very technical issue, and an extremely sensitive one at that.
-
Choice in meaning supposing that zinaa could have additional unrelated meanings such as ?mounting? and the like, then the context of the sentence ? indeed, of the discussion at large ? should provide the specificity necessary for the meaning intended.
Point 2 is irrelevant in my view, for as far as I have gathered about this thread, it is not the choice in meaning that is being here contested, but the very meaning of the word itself.
To summarise, zinaa is intercourse with someone to whom you are not married, invariably.
What is your evidence of that definition of Zina? The Shias include homosexuality and lesbianism as Zina also. Its not English but the OT and NT both seperate fornification with adultery. Fornification is used in the OT variantly sometimes refering to idol worship but adultery is standard. It is also one of the ten commandments and specifically mentions spouse.
All the arabic websites i visited defined zina based on Islamic tradition. Where did you get the notion of that from classical arabic? Anyways Islamic sources itself does not interpret the verses in surat al noor as adultery and fornification. They say its fornification. Adultery they claim is stoning to death. So we have now only the opinion you mentioned in the history of the Abrahamic traditions that does not seperate between the two.
-
-
Nima,
Why are you running away? Is it a fear of being refuted? Is it better to correct oneself in this life or have it forced upon one in the next?
Despite having asked you 3 separate times, you have refused to answer my simple question. And only you can answer it since it relates to how you're understanding Quran with your view.
So let me repeat for a 4th time
According to your reading of Quran what is half and what is full punishment for proven fahisha, e.g. 4 witnesses upon sex between a married person and unmarried person.
Forum Readers
For readers, the reason I ask this is because nima (and anyone who shares his view) says that "zina" means "adultery" only, thus the unmarried person would be tried under "fahisha" not "zina", but according to 415-16 the punishment for proven "fahisha" is being detained in the houses, i.e. house-arrest. And we know from 425 that the punishment for proven fahisha by MMA is half of muhisanat women (which he says means "independent" - so what is half of house-arrest?As you can probably deduce, nima et al are stuck, trapped by a logical consequence of their position. There are only 3 options
- nima et al do not understand my point (even though it is relatively simple) thus are unable to answer - at no point has he said he does not understand my question, thus this option seems unlikely.
- nima understands my point perfectly but has no answer and does not wish to say so - only he/God knows why but I'm sure you can work out why.
- nima has an answer to my question but is running away from answering despite being asked 3 times - only he/God knows why but I'm sure you can work out why.
(2) and (3) are very damaging to nima's credibility - so I will let forum readers decide for themselves if he does not answer.
Nun and uq - thanks for the additional information. The info that you cite is easily available for anyone who can actually be bothered to research this issue - some will not be bothered to research but still insist they are correct etc.
Fahisha in the Quran is adultery. The Quran can not order us to hold fornification against someone. You have never responded to this. On what basis are you going to hold a fornificator account for? Whose business is it and whose right is he violating? Who will lead a charge against fornfication? Who is the wronged party here? So fahisha in the Quran is adultery. I also said the punishment for adultery is symbolic since its impossible to apply, the verse was designed to deal with slander. Read sural al noor. House arrest in the Quran is mentioned as a temporray measure, it says till God finds them a way. This could be because the spouse may want to use violence against them as is usually the case with adultery. Adultery invokes strong emotions.
I still have not herad from you how you define MMA.
As far as half the punisment, this is always the case in the OT where concubines(MMA) never received the same punishment as adultery in a proper marriage. Often adultery commited with MMAs are not treated the same as adultery with a regular spouse.
So let me ask this question again.
In fornification who is the wronged party here and who is the one who will accuse or charge someone with it? There is no answer to this.
-
Forum Readers
For readers, the reason I ask this is because nima (and anyone who shares his view) says that "zina" means "adultery" only, thus the unmarried person would be tried under "fahisha" not "zina",Salaam,
I did only read some posts, so forgive me if this was already mentioned or not the subject.
As per my knowledge and are both under ZINA as per 244 and 246
btw ZINA is a subcatogery of FAHISHA as per 1732
Salaam,
Bender -
Salaam,
I did only read some posts, so forgive me if this was already mentioned or not the subject.
As per my knowledge and are both under ZINA as per 244 and 246
btw ZINA is a subcatogery of FAHISHA as per 1732
Salaam,
BenderThat is my understanding also of fahisha however where I differe with others here is on accountability. It seems some think that people can be held accountable for sins of moral misconduct. The orst immorality is disbelief and idol worship but the Quran gave people the right to do so. I have not heard a single evidence to indicate how a fornficator can be held acountable by law when he has not wronged any party but himself. Whose right has been violate here? There is never going to be an aswer to this. There sems to be still some remains of Sunni Isla where we assume that God tells us to punish people for sins or moral misconduct. This is not the Quran. Th only time the Quran orders us to administer justice and accountabilty on someone is when there is a violation of somebody else's right or a burden has been inflicted on someone.
The whole lgal basis of the Quran is built around this. There is absolutely no way the Quran can tells us to persecute fornfication or homsexuality unless a third party has been wronged. So fahisha is just another term for adultery since adultery involves a spouse who between you an them is an oath and a commitment. Adultery is a betrrayal of trust and its an act of cheating. Those who say that fornfication should be persecuted by law are violating the whole legal basis of the Quran. If this is the case than surely worshiping idols and disbelieving in God is more worthy of persecution. But the Quran says otherwise.
-
Wakas,
You accuse me of running away because I have asked you to explain that which you have cited as evidence against my POV. This is bad.
This is you Nyma I am going to give you evidence for zina meaning more than just adultery and my evidence to you is What is half the punishment of fahisha?The above is not evidence. You need to specify, clarify where this above causes problems. You've finally made some effort in this post, hence I will give you my answer but you inappropriately accuse me of running away when before this post you failed to do all the above. This is wrong. Again you owe me an apology. One ought to conquer themselves to that which is morally right. Whether this be to give an apology when they should or whatever else, they must conquer themselves to the best response.
In my first reply to you on the comment about how we punish for fahisha with regards to fatayat and muhsinat, I said
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?
This means that there are many actions that constitute fahisha. Punishments will differ depending on what has been set for each fahisha. For example it may be specified that those who walk out in the street in full nudity, must pay a fine of ?x. If it is determined that this individual is a fatayat, they pay half of ?x.
e.g. 4 witnesses upon sex between a married person and unmarried person
As I've said before. The unmarried person has done nothing sexually illegal provided that the married person with whom they've engaged in sex with are their boyfriends. The married person has done something illegal. They get punished whilst the non-married person does not.
so what is half of house-arrest?
If you can explain how this is evidence that sexual activity with MMA is prohibited, then I will give you my answer (and i do have an answer) OR If you apologise + ask nicely, I'l do you a favour and give you my answer.
I've answered/commented on EVERYTHING you've asked me. You have answered/commented on absolutely NOTHING from my posts 726 and 728#
If you think I've not answered you anywhere, point it out like I've pointed it out at posts 726 and 728 above and I will Godwilling address them.
Peace
-
That is my understanding also of fahisha however where I differe with others here is on accountability. It seems some think that people can be held accountable for sins of moral misconduct. The orst immorality is disbelief and idol worship but the Quran gave people the right to do so. I have not heard a single evidence to indicate how a fornficator can be held acountable by law when he has not wronged any party but himself. Whose right has been violate here? There is never going to be an aswer to this. There sems to be still some remains of Sunni Isla where we assume that God tells us to punish people for sins or moral misconduct. This is not the Quran. Th only time the Quran orders us to administer justice and accountabilty on someone is when there is a violation of somebody else's right or a burden has been inflicted on someone.
The whole lgal basis of the Quran is built around this. There is absolutely no way the Quran can tells us to persecute fornfication or homsexuality unless a third party has been wronged. So fahisha is just another term for adultery since adultery involves a spouse who between you an them is an oath and a commitment. Adultery is a betrrayal of trust and its an act of cheating. Those who say that fornfication should be persecuted by law are violating the whole legal basis of the Quran. If this is the case than surely worshiping idols and disbelieving in God is more worthy of persecution. But the Quran says otherwise.
Exactly. I'm sure that there will be people who sincerely believe that any relationship before marriage is lewd. No one should then project this and say, since we believe sexual relations outside of marriage is lewd, we will call the act zina and from this we conclude that sexual acitivity with the MMA is restricted to zero sexual activity.
-
425 not mu-s-a-f-h-a-t
Siin-Fa-Ha = musafihun - one who commits fornication or adultery, take unlawfully (women).
LL, V4, p 93 http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume4/00000093.pdf
425 and not who take in secrecy
Kh-Dal-Nun = To befriend, keep company, associate in secrecy or privacy, to converse/talk with.
akhdan n.m. (pl. of khidn) 425, 55
LL, V2, p 348 http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume2/00000348.pdf
Peace Noon
At the moment I think that musafihun are those that are lewd or sexually immoral and akhdan as secret sexual partner.
Thank you for the link to lane. -
What is your evidence of that definition of Zina?
I keep trying to convey this to him and every time he either avoids this or just does not understand. Wakas is a capable guy IMO so this lack of understanding of my POV is probably because he has been absent from the thread or that his belief of the wrongness of sexual activity with a girlfriend has become dogmatically held rather than rationally backed. He has not shown that sexual activity is impermissible with the MMA. Yet he quickly assumes that his opposition is wrong to think that sexual activity with a girlfriend is wrong and has absolutely given no evidence from the Quran.
