How sex before Marriage is not haram (prohibited) according to the Quran
-
I have many times. What is your understanding of muhsinat at 424?
If we force and narrow the Ma malekat aymunkum, to just one category we face problems. For starters, the doctor problem. Can you solve that issueAnd tell the believing females to lower their gaze and keep covered their private parts, and that they should not reveal their beauty except what is apparent, and let them put forth their shawls over their cleavage. And let them not reveal their beauty except to their husbands, or their fathers, or fathers of their husbands, or their sons, or the sons of their husbands, or their brothers, or the sons of their brothers, or the sons of their sisters, or their women, or those maintained by their oaths, or the male servants who are without need, or the child who has not yet understood the composition of women. And let them not strike with their feet in a manner that reveals what they are keeping hidden of their beauty. And repent to God, all of you believers, that you may succeed.
Breast cancer? What should be done to not go against the Quran but treat the cancer at the same time for women?
If this can be solved then we can say that MMA does not necessarily need to encompass doctors.Salaam,
I think the answer is the blue part.
btw I think it's badly translated.Salaam,
Bender -
Peace nimnimak,
More examples If you go to college, go there to study not to fornicate. Study and fornicate are not opposites but logically they work here despite the word not
- So are we in agreement that musafihun and muhsinat need not be opposites?
Yeah sure lets translate as college girls same like independent comes from nowhere.
424 and the college girls from the women
425 and from not is able from you height that marry the college girls
425 so to them half what over the college girls- With regards to musafihun, are we in agreement that it cannot mean fornicate/fornication at 424?
The word used encompass fornication and adultery and we cannot use a different word.
This leaves responsible, sexual activity with one's girlfriend/fiance.
Either married or not, premarital sex with girlfriends is as irresponsible no strings attached as someone visiting his prostitute friends same like you break up with your girlfriends then they do other guys, one big whorehouse.
-
Evidence prevents it. Perhaps you should look at it
And tell the believing females to lower their gaze and keep covered their private parts, and that they should not reveal their beauty except what is apparent, and let them put forth their shawls over their cleavage. And let them not reveal their beauty except to their husbands, or their fathers, or fathers of their husbands, or their sons, or the sons of their husbands, or their brothers, or the sons of their brothers, or the sons of their sisters, or their women, or those maintained by their oaths, or the male servants who are without need, or the child who has not yet understood the composition of women. And let them not strike with their feet in a manner that reveals what they are keeping hidden of their beauty. And repent to God, all of you believers, that you may succeed.
How can these women expose their breasts to a surgeon for a check up?
The same reason that they can expose their genitals (which basically mean their nudity) to children. The verses is intended to mean sexual and not medical. Rescue workers also are in position to be exposed to people's nudity. They can not say because someone was exposed nude we could't save them from drowning. There are exeptions to any rule in life.
-
The guarding of genitalia means only to protect them from abusing it. And this is what sexual activity is. Exposing one's private parts for medical purposes is not synonymous to unguarding genitalia. I don't know why such simple thing is not being allowed to enter the brain.
You have not answered my question about concubines.
-
Quote from Mazhar on Yesterday at 051727 PM
The guarding of genitalia means only to protect them from abusing it. And this is what sexual activity is. Exposing one's private parts for medical purposes is not synonymous to unguarding genitalia. I don't know why such simple thing is not being allowed to enter the brain.Evidence prevents it. Perhaps you should look at it
And tell the believing females to lower their gaze and keep covered their private parts, and that they should not reveal their beauty except what is apparent, and let them put forth their shawls over their cleavage. And let them not reveal their beauty except to their husbands, or their fathers, or fathers of their husbands, or their sons, or the sons of their husbands, or their brothers, or the sons of their brothers, or the sons of their sisters, or their women, or those maintained by their oaths, or the male servants who are without need, or the child who has not yet understood the composition of women. And let them not strike with their feet in a manner that reveals what they are keeping hidden of their beauty. And repent to God, all of you believers, that you may succeed.
How can these women expose their breasts to a surgeon for a check up?
The problem with you is that you do not look at what is stated on the paper-text but keep looking what you have already written in your memory.
Now look at the Verbs. Do you know the difference between Imperative/Commmand Verb and Jussive Verb and Emphatic Verb. Know it and your confusion might get over.
The Verbs used therein do not prohibit that the private parts must not be shown in circumstances requiring treatement and examination by doctor---or a woman is undressed to facilitate deliver her pregnancy. Wearing pants she cannot deliver child.
-
Salaam,
I think the answer is the blue part.
btw I think it's badly translated.Salaam,
BenderThat is exactly what I think. The Ma malekaty aymunkum must also mean doctors etc (those whom your oaths possess)
Thanks for contribution
-
You have not answered my question about concubines.
That is pending against brother Noon, not me.
Peace Bigmo,
What you want to know about concubines, how to acquire them?
Perhaps put up an add in the Russian papers -- need concubine! -
Peace Bigmo,
What you want to know about concubines, how to acquire them?
Perhaps put up an add in the Russian papers -- need concubine!I just wanted to know about whats your definition of what a concubine is because you are talking about housemaids, gardeners and now acquiring them. I get the impression you think they are some slaves or maids or paid workers of some kind. That is not what a concubine is.
-
The same reason that they can expose their genitals (which basically mean their nudity) to children. The verses is intended to mean sexual and not medical. Rescue workers also are in position to be exposed to people's nudity. They can not say because someone was exposed nude we could't save them from drowning. There are exeptions to any rule in life.
Yes but consider the case that you have an adult who is going to die unless their private parts are operated on. This adult refuses to be operated on as they do not want to expose themselves. Should they be operated on?
In the case of emergency situations where the individual your saving has no consciousness, you have to assume that the individual your saving would have given you consent to save them.
With regards to children who are breastfed, there is no consent since they cannot give consent.
Is there anything in the scripture that appears to imply that we can make exceptions?
My point is that it falls down to consent.
What do you think?
-
or the male servants who are without need
Salaam,
I think the answer is the blue part.
btw I think it's badly translated.Salaam,
BenderRoot
This Root signifies and denotes Desire or need which requires exercise of energy, a helping source-instrument for accomplishment; distinct and complete part of body such as is made complete not wanting anything as is quoted in Classic lexicon in these words . Lane's Lexicon quotes the word and suggests that the most common reading is with Fatha on Hamza denoting and meaning the desire/urge but some read with Kasra which specially means the specific part of man, the genital. He seems referring to this entry in Lisan- the Classic lexicon
. . .
.There is no denying that the sexual desire and urge in a man, who is otherwise physically fit/is holder of completely developed genitalia, never vanishes altogether at any point in time in his life, or feels unfit to perform. Amongst men, the above two possessive phrases will, therefore, signify those men who are other than men who are the holders of physical capability and desire for marriage, i.e., such "men" having deficiency-under developed manly-hood, whereby they do not naturally have the urge and desire for seeking women for Marriage/Nikah. Interestingly, the next entry with "or" is about children who have not as yet known as to what are the "sexual privacies of women" like these types of otherwise "men". Perhaps this is the only occasion where we find mention of otherwise existing concept and such people.
-
The problem with you is that you do not look at what is stated on the paper-text but keep looking what you have already written in your memory.
Now look at the Verbs. Do you know the difference between Imperative/Commmand Verb and Jussive Verb and Emphatic Verb. Know it and your confusion might get over.
The Verbs used therein do not prohibit that the private parts must not be shown in circumstances requiring treatement and examination by doctor---or a woman is undressed to facilitate deliver her pregnancy. Wearing pants she cannot deliver child.
Look Mazhar, I gave you my proof (a verse). A defence of my point to you and you your telling me to look at the verbs. Fine let's look at the verbs and I see commands with regards to both hefz (guard) and yub'dna display. If you are sincere with regards to your comments about verbs, then explain how the following are not conveying a command or instruction.
Know it and your confusion might get over.
Perhaps you are in confusion as you have not given explanations with regards to the key verbs. Why not clarify if this is your evidence?
The Verbs used therein do not prohibit that the private parts must not be shown in circumstances requiring treatement and examination by doctor
How so? It's appears that they both are hefz (guard) and yub'dna display. They are both jussive verbs. Can you deny this? And since jussive verbs express a command it is obvious. So I don't understand, why do you divert and deflect my evidence to you. Is this not a sincere discussion with regards to the truth?
or a woman is undressed to facilitate deliver her pregnancy. Wearing pants she cannot deliver child.
Yes that is why doctors must fall under the category of those whom your oaths possess. It easily works with the phrase that the Quran has expressed. I don't understand why you would narrow this phrase and on what basis you would do this.
End this effort to narrow that which was perhaps not intended to be narrowed down, and the confusion might be over Godwilling.
Peace
-
Peace Noon
yeah sure lets translate as college girls same like independent comes from nowhere.
Please give my post some attention. Recognise that I was not translating to college girls. I was giving an example. This was not a translation/interpretation of 424
The intention was to prove to you that muhsinat and musafihun need not be opposites.- Do you disagree with this (the fact that they need not be opposites)?
The word used encompass fornication and adultery and we cannot use a different word.
And I agree but at 424, it cannot mean fornication. It must thus mean adultery only given the context it occurs in.
- Do you agree?
Either married or not, premarital sex with girlfriends is as irresponsible no strings attached as someone visiting his prostitute friends same like you break up with your girlfriends then they do other guys, one big whorehouse.
That is a belief that you have. It may not be the truth. For example Responsible couples. Who take their time before they grow in intimacy. The example you give, is a worst case scenario.
Also bear in mind the benefit of growing intimate with one's partner.
This could be important knowledge as to whether one can commit to that partner for life and start a family with them (marriage).To prohibit what is potentially not prohibited is what may have happened here. That is what is being investigated.
-
The Verbs used therein do not prohibit that the private parts must not be shown in circumstances requiring treatement and examination by doctor---or a woman is undressed to facilitate deliver her pregnancy. Wearing pants she cannot deliver child. Mazhar
How so? It's appears that they both are hefz (guard) and yub'dna display. They are both jussive verbs. Can you deny this? And since jussive verbs express a command it is obvious. So I don't understand, why do you divert and deflect my evidence to you. Is this not a sincere discussion with regards to the truth?
There is the problem. You did understand that the choice preferred was by using the Verbs in Jussive Mood. Yet are stretching it to situations beyond human control, and necessitating rather making it mandatory for exposure of genitals for medical purposes or to deliver a child, by giving them connotation of Emphatic Verbs.
The imperative mood expresses direct commands, prohibitions. An imperative is used to tell someone to do something without argument and exception, unless so permitted by exceptional clause.
The jussive mood expresses pleading, insistence, earnestly asking/advising for something, self-encouragement, wishing, desiring, intention.
-
There is the problem. You did understand that the choice preferred was by using the Verbs in Jussive Mood. Yet are stretching it to situations beyond human control, and necessitating rather making it mandatory for exposure of genitals for medical purposes or to deliver a child, by giving them connotation of Emphatic Verbs.
The imperative mood expresses direct commands, prohibitions. An imperative is used to tell someone to do something without argument and exception, unless so permitted by exceptional clause.
I just checked wiki and it said that
The jussive mood expresses pleading, insistence, imploring, self-encouragement, wishing, desiring, intention, commanding, purpose or consequence. Thus I went with the idea that in that verse the jussive verb was being used in a commanding manner and that in other places, it can be used as other than this.But no I did not know about the distinction between jussive verbs and imperative in arabic. I see your point with regards to the distinction about how seriously one ought to take jussive verbs in arabic vs the imperative and I understand now. Thank you for clarifying the arabic for me. Bear in mind, no one else clarified this point for me, hence my persistence. If I'd known, I would not have persisted. Thanks again.
Peace
-
Peace Mazhar
What becomes of
235-6 and the unguarding of the private parts to the zawj or the Ma Maletkat aymunhum? Based on 2431 we can establish that guarding is not a command. But we still need to account for the MMA.
I agree that the unguarding of the private parts does not = sexual activity. But can we deny that it encompasses sexual activity?
Does one not need to unguard their private parts in order to engage in sexual activity?And this being the case, does this not mean that one can engage in sexual activity with Ma Malekat Aymunhum (whoever they may be)?
Those who have responded to this keep repeating that unguarding the private parts does not mean to have sex and I have already expressed my agreement with that.
But no one has addressed the fact that if one can unguard their private parts, then they can engage in sex. Just as one does not engage in sex, by guarding their private parts and since only two categories have been specified with regards to the unguarding of the private parts, then this implies sexual activity with them does it not?Is there anything significant in the arabic that I may not be recognising?
-
Yes but consider the case that you have an adult who is going to die unless their private parts are operated on. This adult refuses to be operated on as they do not want to expose themselves. Should they be operated on?
In the case of emergency situations where the individual your saving has no consciousness, you have to assume that the individual your saving would have given you consent to save them.
With regards to children who are breastfed, there is no consent since they cannot give consent.
Is there anything in the scripture that appears to imply that we can make exceptions?
My point is that it falls down to consent.
What do you think?
Yes they should be operated on because that would mean suicide or self detsruction. The Quran orders us not to harm ourself and self destruct ourselves. If there is no medical reason than that is something else. I bet most family members even his wife would have no problem him exposing himself to a doctor if its about his safety or health. That would mean many operations in surgical rooms can not happen.
Mind you there are doctors who abuse that privelege. But what can we humans do. Sometimes you can be unconscious in the operation room and many things can happen. I guess its about the lesser of two evils. But nudity is not the same as adultery anyways.
-
I was thinking more on the lines that they should be operated based on there being consent between the two of them. The doctor and the patient. This IMO is as good as oaths.
This is why I chose to understand MMA's as encompassing anything where oaths possess something as that is what the phrase literally means and I figured this would solve the doctor issue given the restriction of the Guarding to just the Zawj or the MMA and since the doctor is to treat the patient for medical purposes as opposed to take advantage of the oaths between them and their patient, it made good sense. Thus I thought the use of MMA could cover doctors and so on.
But given the nature of jussive verbs in arabic, there is another way that one can justify/defend the Quran as allowing doctors to operate on patients and so on.
I don't think any of the two should be ruled untill there is evidence that we should narrow our understanding of the MMA.
-
To add to my last post.
I say as good as oaths, because of
2224 And do not make God the subject of your casual oaths. Be pious and righteous and reconcile among the people; and God is Hearer, Knower.
2225 God will not call you to account for your casual oaths, but He will call you to account for what has entered your hearts. God is Forgiving, Compassionate.But if we conclude that the MMA cannot/likely don't encompass doctors, then we are not faced with a contradiction in the Quran due to the use of jussive verbs as opposed to imperative verbs at 2431 (as pointed out by Mazhar)