How sex before Marriage is not haram (prohibited) according to the Quran
-
A friend is a friend, be it a girl or boy, because it refers to somebody who is emotionally close--somebody who trusts and is fond of another.
And a spouse is a spouse, be it a girl or boy. I don't understand what your conveying in the above.
Therefore, if you approve sex between friends who have different sexual gender, you shoud treat the friends of same gender at par with your friend legally and morally. What is the legal position for those male friends who enjoy sex?
It depends on whether such male friends are committing lewdness. If they are, then according to the scripture, there is a punishment involved. If they are not, then there is no punishment involved.
-
It depends on whether such male friends are committing lewdness.
Sexual in an offensive way is lewdness. The issue is about "friendly sex". How friends be committing "lewdness"? You think "friendly sex" is permissible, whether friend is a male or female, and is not punishable. Is this your contention?
-
Where is WAKAS?
He is most likely busy. According to his profile, his last post was the one directed at me so he must have not had time to get back on to free-minds yet.
Peace Noon an mazhar
I will reply to you soon. I've got to start rationing the amount of time I spend on free-minds. It's beginning to completely take over everything as there is much to reply to.
-
Peace Noon an mazhar
I will reply to you soon. I've got to start rationing the amount of time I spend on free-minds. It's beginning to completely take over everything as there is much to reply to.
Peace nimnimak,
Take your time cross-reference every verse see if you can fit non-existent independent have it make sense.
Ha-Sad-Nun = To be guarded, be inaccessible/unapproachable, be chaste, be strongly fortified, difficult to access, be preserved, be protected (against attack), abstain from what is not lawful nor decorous, preserve or guard a thing in places inaccessible/unapproachable, make or render a thing inaccessible or unapproachable or difficult to access, make/render a thing unattainable by reason of its height, to fortify oneself.
Lane's Lexicon, Volume 2, page 222, 223424 and the chaste
425 the chaste
425 chaste not non-chaste (Siin-Fa-Ha = musafihun - one who commits fornication or adultery)
425 so to them half what over the chaste from the punishment55 and the chaste from the believers
55 and the chaste from the ones who were given the book244 and the ones who accuse the chaste
2423 indeed the ones who accuse the chaste -
Peace All
In my summary and in discussions here, I was under the impression that abstain at 2433 refers to marriage. This was proven wrong by good logic. The following are quotes from him, then me
Peace nimnimak.
How can you abstain from marriage if you cannot marry? You have no choice! you cannot marry. You are already abstaining.
So obviously you abstain from something else that you are able to do, even though you cannot get married!
How can you abstain from getting pregnant if you are male? Remember GOD is addressing both sexes.
To me that leaves only one possibility.
Peace.
I originally understood the verse to mean those who don't have the means for marriage rather than those who cannot find marriage. This makes a lot of difference in my understanding. The clue in the verse 2433 with regards to what abstain/refrain must be referring to was that it must relate to God enriching us with his bounty. I didn't think sex would make sense. I mean how could God enrich us of his bounty such that sexual abstinence could be ended.
Abstain remains open though to what it could be referring to. We should look at it in the context and use our aql for it to make sense. Any ideas how sex might be related to God enriching us of his Bounties?
In addition to the above I would like to add
I'm not suggesting that marriage is exclusively for children and the start of families. I think it is of more benefit and relevance to a couple who plan on children (whether this be natural pregnancy or adoption) than a couple who do not have this same goal in mind.
I don't think that it can be said that a couple who don't have wealth and resources should try for a child outside of marriage. Here I think it becomes more important, relevant and necessary that a couple marry. Inheritance and rights plus identity of the child ought to be established so that ideally, the child will not become an orphan.
I think there is a clear seperation and distinction between sexual activity and trying for a child and in my opinion the waiting periods and the refrain/abstain at 2433 must be referring to those that seek to start a family or try for a child. I say this because I have the following in mind
There are sperm donors and there are egg donors. Someone who seeks to have children, can do so without any sexual activity. For example men who want children could go after an egg donor and women who want children could go after a sperm donor. A couple can even be each other's donors and get pregnant without any sexual activity and without marrying and without having the resources to bring up their respective children.
Thus it needs to be made clear what the Quran's intention is with regards to the waiting periods, the purpose of nikah and what one should refrain/abstain from before marriage. In my opinion since the two are distinguishable (trying for children and sexual activity) it needs to be determined which the Quran is referring to and in my opinion, it is with regards to children andd pregnancies rather than sexual activity.
-
Take your time
Thanks Noon, God-willing I'l reply to both your posts tomorrow.
-
Peace nimnimak.
For me ,as I understand things from Qoran so far, I deduce the following
We are responsible to bring up our own children.As believers we should teach " morality/chastity" until marriage.
Of course I do not claim to be an expert. I am also willing to listen to evidence from Qoran.
The reason for " chastity" is to protect the children until they reach the age of " marrying". Then we should encourage them to marry.
" Sex before marriage" in our generation is an issue. You are rightly opening discussions on the subject and I respect you for that.
Carry on the good workThank you for your conversation.
Peace. -
bigmo,
I have already said what my view on what MMA is on this thread, and others. It is rather tiresome for me to keep repeating myself. If you wish to actually read up on it, then my view is very similar to
http//www.free-minds.org/Old/articles/quranic/malak.htm
http//quransmessage.com/articles/sex%20with%20slave%20girls%20FM3.htmnima,
Again, see above, there is no need for me to reply further. You have failed to answer some critical points. Readers can make up their own mind.
A brief summary shown below for nima, bigmo and readers to consider
No CAD evidence of ?zina? exclusively meaning adultery
No evidence of Quran usage for the above.
Forced to restrict meaning by insertions, e.g. 243 ?.......marry (after you divorce or are divorced)....?
Forced to assume ?unguard furooj? can mean sex, when this term is never clearly used as such in Quran, and other words are used instead.
Lack of answer/explanation for logical consequences of your position.
Forced to say public fornication is unpunishable in Quran.
Forced to admit 3rd party knowingly breaching of contract goes unmentioned in Quran.
Unable to properly explain usage of words, such as ?muhsn?, ?musafihun? (commits fornication or adultery), ?secret lovers?, passive participle etc.
Seemingly fails to appreciate Quran is universal, thus talk of protective-sex, and latest technologies is not a universal issue ? and certainly not when it was revealed - Quran has to apply easily for all.
Forced to admit Quran is negative on ?musafihun?, ?secret lovers? yet claim believers can still do so.
Now seemingly admits to refrain/be chaste is Quran's message.
Failure to disprove the common position with solid evidence.
And any other points on this thread not mentioned above.
As I said before, once you do some thorough research, address all issues/words in detail, come up with something coherent, put it in an article, then let me know.
-
bigmo,
I have already said what my view on what MMA is on this thread, and others. It is rather tiresome for me to keep repeating myself. If you wish to actually read up on it, then my view is very similar to
http//www.free-minds.org/Old/articles/quranic/malak.htm
http//quransmessage.com/articles/sex%20with%20slave%20girls%20FM3.htmnima,
Again, see above, there is no need for me to reply further. You have failed to answer some critical points. Readers can make up their own mind.
A brief summary shown below for nima, bigmo and readers to consider
No CAD evidence of ?zina? exclusively meaning adultery
No evidence of Quran usage for the above.
Forced to restrict meaning by insertions, e.g. 243 ?.......marry (after you divorce or are divorced)....?
Forced to assume ?unguard furooj? can mean sex, when this term is never clearly used as such in Quran, and other words are used instead.
Lack of answer/explanation for logical consequences of your position.
Forced to say public fornication is unpunishable in Quran.
Forced to admit 3rd party knowingly breaching of contract goes unmentioned in Quran.
Unable to properly explain usage of words, such as ?muhsn?, ?musafihun? (commits fornication or adultery), ?secret lovers?, passive participle etc.
Seemingly fails to appreciate Quran is universal, thus talk of protective-sex, and latest technologies is not a universal issue ? and certainly not when it was revealed - Quran has to apply easily for all.
Forced to admit Quran is negative on ?musafihun?, ?secret lovers? yet claim believers can still do so.
Now seemingly admits to refrain/be chaste is Quran's message.
Failure to disprove the common position with solid evidence.
And any other points on this thread not mentioned above.
As I said before, once you do some thorough research, address all issues/words in detail, come up with something coherent, put it in an article, then let me know.
"Forced to assume ?unguard furooj? can mean sex, when this term is never clearly used as such in Quran, and other words are used instead."
So are you saying here that its ok to have sex with whom you are engaged to?
23.5-7 And they who guard their private parts, Except from their wives or those their right hands possess, for indeed, they will not be blamed -But whoever seeks beyond that, then those are the transgressors -
Plus you have not answered this. On what basis you are going to hold a couple accountable for fornification? On whom is their a violation and on what authority are you going to charge them with? Whose business is it and whose right has been violated?
-
Peace Wakas
I have already said what my view on what MMA is on this thread, and others. It is rather tiresome for me to keep repeating myself.
I said to you "I've answered/commented on EVERYTHING you've asked me. You have answered/commented on absolutely NOTHING from my posts 726 and 728#". You'l find the problems with your view in those posts. Thus I have given you proof/evidence counter to your view.
With regards to your claims of my lacking evidence
No CAD evidence of ?zina? exclusively meaning adultery
Reply 740 to uq has a detailed defence (to which he did not refute) Also in my reply 720 to you I agreed with you "provided that there are others cases of illegal sexual acts in addition to adultery that bear equal level of moral wrongness.
What was left for us to do was to determine what is legal and illegal with regards to sexual activity and this lead to the next points a and b.No evidence of Quran usage for the above.
I provided. I mentioned that there is one punishment for zina at 242-3 (the same verses you used for your evidence) thus this clearly implies that either
a) Only one sort of sexual activity is prohibited (since there is only one punishment outlined for zina) OR
b) More than one sort of sexual activity, that are all of equal moral wrongness, are prohibited My reply 740 covers more.Forced to assume ?unguard furooj? can mean sex, when this term is never clearly used as such in Quran, and other words are used instead.
For the fourth time
- Ungarding the furooj does not mean to have sex I NEVER said this. WHAT I'M SAYING IS That we do not make up prohibitions, we find them. Unguarding the private parts is a restriction applied to the zawj and the MMA
- 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
In other words are the further restrictions? All your suggestions on there being has been dealt (as I will make clear) yet you refuse to even comment on that which has been dealt with and assume your position as right.
You show where there is a lack of logic in this. You have not so far.
Lack of answer/explanation for logical consequences of your position.
I've covered it. You never asked me about it. There are no negative/unreasonable consequences to this position.
Forced to say public fornication is unpunishable in Quran.
No, I am not. If public fornication is as bad as adultery, then it is zina, if not you punish the two on grounds of lewdness.
Forced to admit 3rd party knowingly breaching of contract goes unmentioned in Quran.
No they are unmentioned. If they sleep with someone who is married. The crime of the married person is greater since they agreed/proposed a marriage commitment whilst the unmarried person did not. Either way if they knowingly slept with a married person, they are lewd and this bodes badly for them in the sight of God yet you cannot punish them via the law just like you cannot punish a woman who has deceived a married man to divorce his wife for her.
Unable to properly explain usage of words, such as ?muhsn?, ?musafihun? (commits fornication or adultery), ?secret lovers?, passive participle etc.
This is wrong. I gave you good evidence at replies 726 and 728. Without even commenting on them you have concluded unjustly as you have done with so many of my points.
Seemingly fails to appreciate Quran is universal, thus talk of protective-sex, and latest technologies is not a universal issue ? and certainly not when it was revealed - Quran has to apply easily for all.
I think you'l find this is your weakness. I'l make this clear in my next post.
Forced to admit Quran is negative on ?musafihun?, ?secret lovers? yet claim believers can still do so.
Reply 726+728. Again with no comments/defence of yourself, assuming your right. You game evidence, I responded, you did nothing to point defend/refute my evidence. This is wrong. You did not even say you disagreed.
Now seemingly admits to refrain/be chaste is Quran's message. Failure to disprove the common position with solid evidence. And any other points on this thread not mentioned above.
Failure to read my posts. Reply 765.
As is evident, I covered all your points. If you disagree with any of them, you certainly did not mention it to me at all. This is the first I am hearing of it.
-
and Wakas, I think it is unacceptable for anyone, let alone a free-minds moderator who enters these forums with no proper knowledge of what's gone on in there to insult their opposition (me) with comments like
So until you provide some evidence/reason, stop wasting mine and everyone else's time, or at least have the decency to clarify for all that your view is based on nothing but conjecture.Have the decency to apologise.
Also you suggested that Nyma
Seemingly fails to appreciate Quran is universal, thus talk of protective-sex, and latest technologies is not a universal issue ? and certainly not when it was revealed - Quran has to apply easily for all.How would you reconcile
I think there is a clear seperation and distinction between sexual activity and trying for a child and in my opinion the waiting periods and the refrain/abstain at 2433 must be referring to those that seek to start a family or try for a child. I say this because I have the following in mind
There are sperm donors and there are egg donors. Someone who seeks to have children, can do so without any sexual activity. For example men who want children could go after an egg donor and women who want children could go after a sperm donor. A couple can even be each other's donors and get pregnant without any sexual activity and without marrying and without having the resources to bring up their respective children.
Thus it needs to be made clear what the Quran's intention is with regards to the waiting periods, the purpose of nikah and what one should refrain/abstain from before marriage. In my opinion since the two are distinguishable (trying for children and sexual activity) it needs to be determined which the Quran is referring to and in my opinion, it is with regards to children andd pregnancies rather than sexual activity.
Peace
-
and Wakas, I think it is unacceptable for anyone, let alone a free-minds moderator who enters these forums with no proper knowledge of what's gone on in there to insult their opposition (me) with comments like
Have the decency to apologise.
I have noticed that some have formulated views of some verses that they are not willing to reconsider. Thats strange since being a Quranist my views change everyday in many issues. I thought being a Quranist means that you don't follow a dogma. We are all here to learn anyways. This is not a boxing match.
However I have noticed something in your post. You said that people should be persecuted for lewdness. What exactly does this mean and why should they be persecuted or punished for lewdness?
Should there be punishment for idol worship and fasting Ramadan and being stingy and not paying zakat also? I am not sure what you and Wakas are arguing about. Is it a moral issue or a legal issue because they are not the same.
-
I have noticed that some have formulated views of some verses that they are not willing to reconsider.
It appears to me that this is the case.
We are all here to learn anyways. This is not a boxing match.
True. But I think that an apology should be given when someone enters a discussion and is disrespectful.
However I have noticed something in your post. You said that people should be persecuted for lewdness. What exactly does this mean and why should they be persecuted or punished for lewdness?
For example if someone chooses to walk out in full nudity in the middle of town. I think that warrants at least a fine. Also sexual harassment if proven should be dealt with by the law. Also pornography, unless they can rock solidly secure it from public eyes should also be punished since it's easily accessible to anyone with an internet connection including children. There are loads of other cases where fahisha should be dealt with by the law.
Anything that is done in private which does not infringe on anyone else's rights directly or indirectly via harm and possibly offence should be left up to the individual. As I cannot see on what moral grounds one would persecute someone who does not harm others (provided that they have no moral/legal obligation towards others...such as their own children)
Should there be punishment for idol worship and fasting Ramadan and being stingy and not paying zakat also?
If there is no harm to others, no IMO.
I am not sure what you and Wakas are arguing about. Is it a moral issue or a legal issue because they are not the same.
I think that both are being discussed at the same time. Wakas (if I have understood him correctly) appears to believe that any sexual activity outside of marriage is a lewdness and that if there are 4 witnesses to a sexual activity without a marriage certificate, this must result in lashing.
In the "Islamic" Republic of Iran my Aunt who is a nurse has said of stories of under 17s coming into the hospital pregnant dreading their parent's reaction to their irresponsibility. These girls that turn up pregnant have obviously had sex before marrying. The pregnancy is evidence to this and more than 4 have witnessed this. Lashing these girls is unreasonable IMO.
-
Peace nimnimak.
For me ,as I understand things from Qoran so far, I deduce the following
We are responsible to bring up our own children.As believers we should teach " morality/chastity" until marriage.
Of course I do not claim to be an expert. I am also willing to listen to evidence from Qoran.
The reason for " chastity" is to protect the children until they reach the age of " marrying". Then we should encourage them to marry.
" Sex before marriage" in our generation is an issue. You are rightly opening discussions on the subject and I respect you for that.
Carry on the good workThank you for your conversation.
Peace.Thank you Good Logic, had you not had pointed out my error with regards to 2433, It may have been a long time (if ever) before I realised my mistake. Much appreciated.
Peace
-
Salam Noon
They are opposites. Even in programming logic the NOT function or Inverter (logic gate) is opposite.
Consider the following examples
- When you marry, you should seek to independence not dependence (this is a case of opposites)
Same example - When you marry, you should seek to be independent not lustful.
Is there anything logically wrong with 2?
Therefore, using substitution...
chaste
adjective
Abstaining from extramarital, or from all, sexual activity.423-25 prohibited onto you your mothers and your daughters ...
and that you gathered between the two sisters only what hence passed
indeed The God is Forgiving Merciful (continue prohibition against gathering between)...and the chaste from the women only what possess your right hands/means
scripture The God onto you and permitted to you what behind those that you seek with your wealth
mu-h-sin-n-y-na guarded/careful not mu-s-a-f-h-y-na unguarded/careless
so what enjoyment to you with it from them so give them their rewards obligation
and not blame onto you in what you agree with them with it from after the obligation
indeed The God is Knowing Wiseand from not is able from you awlan/height that marry the chaste the believers
so from what possess your right hands/means from fatayatikumu/your maidens the believers
(if they are not chaste, they are category of loose girls, had prior sex, ex-prostitutes, less desirable for marriage, cheaper, etc.)and The God Knows in your faith some of you from others (a reminder, you're not all that uppity)
so marry them by permission their family and give them their rewards in fair manner
chaste not non-chaste (Siin-Fa-Ha = musafihun - one who commits fornication or adultery)
and not who take in secrecyso when guarded/married so if they commit b-f-a-h-sh-t in immorality
so to them half what over the chaste from the punishmentthat to who fears the hardship from you and that you be patient better to you
and The God Forgiving MercifulIf we understand mushinat as chaste, and understand chaste as
Abstaining from extramarital, or from all, sexual activity
this implies If you can't marry those who abstain from extramarital, or from all sexual activity, then marry the fatayat of those whom your (communitie's) oaths possess.I don't think this works because it implies that the fatayat are not chaste. This means that we are advised to marry the unchaste women when we can't marry the chaste women. I don't think this is reasonable.
- When you marry, you should seek to independence not dependence (this is a case of opposites)
-
It appears to me that this is the case.
True. But I think that an apology should be given when someone enters a discussion and is disrespectful.For example if someone chooses to walk out in full nudity in the middle of town. I think that warrants at least a fine. Also sexual harassment if proven should be dealt with by the law. Also pornography, unless they can rock solidly secure it from public eyes should also be punished since it's easily accessible to anyone with an internet connection including children. There are loads of other cases where fahisha should be dealt with by the law.
Anything that is done in private which does not infringe on anyone else's rights directly or indirectly via harm and possibly offence should be left up to the individual. As I cannot see on what moral grounds one would persecute someone who does not harm others (provided that they have no moral/legal obligation towards others...such as their own children)
If there is no harm to others, no IMO.
I think that both are being discussed at the same time. Wakas (if I have understood him correctly) appears to believe that any sexual activity outside of marriage is a lewdness and that if there are 4 witnesses to a sexual activity without a marriage certificate, this must result in lashing.In the "Islamic" Republic of Iran my Aunt who is a nurse has said of stories of under 17s coming into the hospital pregnant dreading their parent's reaction to their irresponsibility. These girls that turn up pregnant have obviously had sex before marrying. The pregnancy is evidence to this and more than 4 have witnessed this. Lashing these girls is unreasonable IMO.
Ok so we have similar views.
-
Salam Noon
Ha-Sad-Nun = To be guarded, be inaccessible/unapproachable, be chaste, be strongly fortified, difficult to access, be preserved, be protected (against attack), abstain from what is not lawful nor decorous, preserve or guard a thing in places inaccessible/unapproachable, make or render a thing inaccessible or unapproachable or difficult to access, make/render a thing unattainable by reason of its height, to fortify oneself.
Lane's Lexicon, Volume 2, page 222, 223424 and the chaste
425 the chaste
425 chaste not non-chaste (Siin-Fa-Ha = musafihun - one who commits fornication or adultery)
425 so to them half what over the chaste from the punishment55 and the chaste from the believers
55 and the chaste from the ones who were given the book244 and the ones who accuse the chaste
2423 indeed the ones who accuse the chasteTake your time cross-reference every verse see if you can fit non-existent independent have it make sense.
I know the word independent isn't in Lane but there is the word guarded and when reading the free-minds translations of 424-25 I agreed with their translation of muhsinat as independent because in my opinion it (to be guarded) does relate to independence.
Also
Because the fatayat and the muhsinat are related such that the muhsinat have an attribute that the fatayat don't. I cannot see chaste as being that attribute because this would mean that 424-25 is saying if we can't marry the chaste women, then we marry the unchaste women whom the communities oaths possess.But if we take muhsinat to mean guarded and understand one aspect of being guarded mentally is to be independent, this would then render 424-25 as making sense. This would then explain why we are obligated to ask the family of the fatayat with regards to marriage but not the family of the muhsinat. Thus IMO does not fit 424-25.
I forgot to comment on
423-25 prohibited onto you your mothers and your daughters ...
and that you gathered between the two sisters only what hence passed
indeed The God is Forgiving Merciful (continue prohibition against gathering between)...and the chaste from the women only what possess your right hands/means
I don't think that it's a continuation on gathering between. If we do not take this as only applying to the sisters, this
would then mean that it is ok to gather between two of the fatayat.
IMO this makes less sense than understanding that before marrying a muhsinat, one must have oaths (such as engagement) possessing these muhsinat first.It makes sense IMO to prohibit gathering between two sisters. But It would not make sense to say you can gather between two muhsinat women provided that your oaths/right hands possess them. For these reasons, I don't think the gathering is a continuation.
-
With regards to my objection to the understanding of the muhsinat as being chaste, please see my reply 775 to you.
I know the word independent isn't in Lane but there is the word guarded and when reading the free-minds translations of 424-25 I agreed with their translation of muhsinat as independent because in my opinion it does relate to independence.
Because the fatayat and the muhsinat are related such that the muhsinat have an attribute that the fatayat don't. I cannot see chaste as being that attribute because this would mean that 424-25 is saying if we can't marry the chaste women, then we marry the unchaste women whom the communities oaths possess.
But if we take muhsinat to mean guarded and understand one aspect of being guarded mentally is to be independent, this would then render 424-25 as making sense. This would then explain why we are obligated to ask the family of the fatayat with regards to marriage but not the family of the muhsinat. Thus IMO does not fit 424-25.
Peace nimnimak, you did not address the main proof which absolutely and clearly refutes your whole assumption and calls those who engage in premarital sex/fornication musafihun which is the opposite of chaste.
Ha-Sad-Nun = To be guarded, be inaccessible/unapproachable, be chaste...
Lane's Lexicon, Volume 2, page 222, 223425 chaste not non-chaste (Siin-Fa-Ha = musafihun - one who commits fornication or adultery)
LL, V4, p 93 http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume4/00000093.pdf
Do what you want, it's clear per Qur'an premarital sex/fornication is musafihun no different than whoring.
Likewise, when reached the age of the marriage and not the age of screwing around being a musafihun...
46 and test the orphans until when reached the marriage so if you perceive from them rational so deliver to them their wealth and not eat/consume it wastefully and hastily lest/that they grow up and from is rich so should refrain and from is poor so let eat/consume in fair manner so then you deliver to them their wealth so take witnesses on them and sufficient in The God Reckoner
No more comments!
-
Ok so we have similar views.
On the legal aspects of Islam with regards to sex, I think this is the case.
