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

nimnimak_11

Please search and find "wife" in it.

Encyclopedia BritannicaEncyclopedia
possession

in law, the acquisition of either a considerable degree of physical control over a physical thing, such as land or chattel, or the legal right to control intangible property, such as a credit-with the definite intention of ownership. With respect to land and chattel, possession may well have started as a physical fact, but possession today is often an abstraction. A servant or an employee, for instance, may have custody of an object, but he does not have possession; his employer does, even though he may be thousands of miles from the object he owns. Furthermore, except in the most abstract way, it is not possible to speak of the possession of intangible property.

pos?ses?sion
noun (plural pos?ses?sions)

ownership the act or state of owning or holding something
You can take possession of the house on Friday.
something owned something owned or held
politics colony a country or region controlled or governed by another country (often used in the plural)
state of being controlled the condition of being controlled by or appearing to be controlled by a supposed supernatural force or a strong emotion
control of ball in various sports, control of the ball or puck by a player or team
crime illegal ownership of something the crime of having or owning something illegal such as a weapon, contraband, stolen property, or illegal drugs
law occupancy the physical occupancy of something such as a house, whether or not as its owner

pos?ses?sions, plural noun
property personal property

-pos?ses?sion?al, , adjective
Encarta dictionary

Wikipedia

Possession may refer to

LawDependent territory, an area of land over which another country exercises sovereignty, but which does not have the full right of participation in that country's governance
Drug possession, a crime
Ownership
Personal property, physical possessions belonging to a person
Possession (law), exclusive practical control of a thing, in the context of the legal implications of that control
Title (property)

LinguisticsInalienable possession, relationship between two objects that is irreversible
Possession (linguistics), grammatically expressed relationship such as control-of and ownership

Metaphysics

Demonic possession, psychokinetic control of a person by the Devil or other malevolent spirit
Spirit possession, psychokinetic control of the behavior of a living thing or natural object by a spiritual being

World English Dictionary
possession (pzn)

? n

the act of possessing or state of being possessed in possession of the crown
anything that is owned or possessed
( plural ) wealth or property
the state of being controlled or dominated by or as if by evil spirits
the physical control or occupancy of land, property, etc, whether or not accompanied by ownership to take possession of a house
a territory subject to a foreign state or to a sovereign prince colonial possessions
sport control of the ball, puck, etc, as exercised by a player or team he lost possession in his own half

Now that's evidence.
I accept the above evidence and so accept your point. I will have to reject Cambridge's definition of possess but I believe the above is better evidence.

So you have established that possess in some way implies authority. What becomes of reply 904?

Mazhar

Now that's evidence.
I accept the above evidence and so accept your point. I will have to reject Cambridge's definition of possess but I believe the above is better evidence.

So you have established that possess in some way implies authority. What becomes of reply 904?

Cambridge's definition is not far off from the evidence accepted. Their expressions perhaps were seen from a different angle. Now that is the past.
However, we should place more reliance on Qur'aan which distinguishes between "thing", "animal" and a human being as distinct and exclusive to each other.

904 is this

In arabic hand appears to convey

538
As for the thief, both male and female, you shall cut from their resources (hands) - as a penalty for what they have earned - to be made an example of from God. God is Noble, Wise.

But we know that the phrase Ma Malikat Aymnukum does not contain the word hands (aydin) (root word ya dal ya) It has Aymunkum root word (ya mim nun)

These are two completely separate words that do no connote or convey the same thing.
We know without a doubt that the Quran uses right hand to connote oaths (2225)

If the Quran had said those whom your hands possess, then your point is understandable since we have examples from it.
But it does not. It uses a different word with a different root upon which the examples we have from it is oath/oaths. This is completely different to hand or hands

Given this distinction between hand and right hand as expressed above,
What is the function and purpose of aymunkum (if not oaths) in the phrase Ma Malikat Aymunkum according to your understanding? How have you accounted for the word?

First thing is that I have not used the words "that which your right hand possessed". On the contrary I have said that majority of translators have erroneously used this word in the translation.

Instead of taking you into the delicacies of the language and its grammar, I give you one Ayah where both words are used. And try to translate it with "oaths". This is 512

Mazhar

One more point for your reflection.

The Root Ya Meem Noon basically denotes right side. And what is signified by right side? Why one pledges or promises by swearing calling someone thought to be sacred as witness?

Mazhar

Yet another tip for your consideration.

An oath is a promise, both in common parlance and in the legal sense.
A "promise" is when a person agrees to do something or to not do something.

Pl see "oath" with two pictures to know its relation with right hand. And note that it is causing an obligation, a liability non fulfilment of which might be liable to criminal cognizance. You can now decide that can this have any relationship with the word "possession".

http//simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath

nimnimak_11

Ok thanks for the points mentioned.
Godwilling I will look at them properly and tomorrow I will reply.

Peace

Bigmo

Yes dear, psychotherapy is a lenghty exercise needing great patience. You could have helped me by giving your opinion whether you could say that your wife is your possession like anything else in your household. Or something like your avatar is doing since sometimes such unexpected action also helps dissolve the clot.

I have taken the Bible's point of view and I have not seen a better explanation. MMA as I see it is a concubine which is basically the same as a wife but without the financial commitment and usual rituals usually accompanying a marriage like engagement etc. MMA means those whom you have possesed by oath. Concubines are based on oath only. The Arabs call that urfi marriages.

nimnimak_11

Instead of taking you into the delicacies of the language and its grammar, I give you one Ayah where both words are used. And try to translate it with "oaths". This is 512

The above verse 5712

From the verse it is evident that here both aydihim and ayminhim must be understood as locational words due to the use of the word beyn (accusative location verb)

We know that in the Quran that aydihim and ayminhim, have been used in other places to refer to before (aydihim) and right side (ayminhim).

With regards to before 297, 2255 38
With regards to right hand side 717, 1648, 1817

Thus the above is obviously not with regards to oaths, but positions as made clear by the word beyn. But what has this got to do with the Phrase Ma Malekat Aymunkum? We know that Aymunkum can't be referring to a postion, as the phrase would make no sense. Your suggestion is that it is referring to right hand.

How can one make sense of the phrase those (men/women) whom your right hands have authority or possess? How would you account for right hands in such a phrase?

If we take aymunkum as right hands, is there any possible meaning other than

Those whom your right hands have physical authority or physically possesses.
Given the un-sensible meaning of the above our only other option is to understand aymunkum as connoting something.

Is there a more warranted connotation of aymunkum other than oaths?

nimnimak_11

One more point for your reflection.

The Root Ya Meem Noon basically denotes right side. And what is signified by right side? Why one pledges or promises by swearing calling someone thought to be sacred as witness?

So you are referring to oaths here?

nimnimak_11

Yet another tip for your consideration.

An oath is a promise, both in common parlance and in the legal sense.
A "promise" is when a person agrees to do something or to not do something.

Pl see "oath" with two pictures to know its relation with right hand. And note that it is causing an obligation, a liability non fulfilment of which might be liable to criminal cognizance. You can now decide that can this have any relationship with the word "possession".

http//simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath

I am happy to discuss what constitutes an oath. But should we not first deal with the phrase Ma Malikat Aymunkum first and see whether right hands best fits it or oaths?

Mazhar

From the verse it is evident that here both aydihim and ayminhim must be understood as locational words due to the use of the word beyn (accusative location verb)

We know that in the Quran that aydihim and ayminhim, have been used in other places to refer to before (aydihim) and right side (ayminhim).

With regards to before 297, 2255 38
With regards to right hand side 717, 1648, 1817

Thus the above is obviously not with regards to oaths, but positions as made clear by the word beyn. But what has this got to do with the Phrase Ma Malekat Aymunkum?

"in the space in middle of their hands" The second noun is not for since it is used for a space between two things. Right hand is single, "alongwith with their respective right hand side".
Its Root primarily signifies right side.

Oaths are taken to emphasise one's truthfullness-rightly directed in what he is stating on oath.

I am happy to discuss what constitutes an oath. But should we not first deal with the phrase Ma Malikat Aymunkum first and see whether right hands best fits it or oaths?

The problem is not with Aymunkum but the verb whose subject is this. The Verb is Malakat. And it has nothing to do with Oaths. Verb and its Verbal Noun denote authority, governance. Human beings are authoritatively controlled, subjugated, goverend, subjected.

For physical holding of a thing only is used not Aymunkum.

Mazhar

a wife but without the financial commitment

Financial commitment is the prerequsite in all cases.

Bigmo

Financial commitment is the prerequsite in all cases.

For a marriage. But not with MMA which is why the Quran discouraged this practice but allowed it for those who did not have the finances and did not have the means.

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 dishonored 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.

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

It fits perfectly. The only difference is that concubines have no dowry and is based on an oath only between the partners. Arabs call that urfi marriages. It is open for abuse since there is no financial protection and often the man can denied he was in such an arrangement. Many times families are not aware. But it is still a legitimate arrangement since both parties agreed to that arrangement. Which is why the Quran discourages such arrangement and advices to elevate it to a proper marriage by dowy and informing the family. Also in the Bible concubines were never punished for sexual condct the same as wives, exactly what the Quran says.

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.

The 'Urfi marriage has always existed, but for different reasons.

In the past, it was common among the widows of soldiers who had huge pensions and they did not want to lose it by officially re-marrying. Now, however, it is mostly among university students and young couples who cannot afford the high cost of marriage.

Undocumented 'Urfi marriages are increasingly popular among Egyptian youth. The high cost of marriage forces many young couples to wait several years before they marry. Conservative Egyptian society forbids sex before marriage, so many young people consider the 'Urfi marriage a solution. 'Urfi marriages are conducted by a Muslim cleric in the presence of two witnesses. However, they are not officially registered and are not legally financially binding on the man. Couples married in this way often meet in secret and avoid the expense of renting an apartment. The 'Urfi marriage can be disastrous for the wife in legal terms. If the husband leaves her without granting her a divorce, she had no legal right to seek a divorce since 'Urfi marriage is considered illegal. Her husband could remarry. The wife is in a more difficult position. If the wife remarries, she can be accused of polyandry, which is punishable by seven years in prison in Egypt, or she could remain single for the rest of her life.

http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikah_'urfi

Consequences

Couples married in this way often meet in secret and avoid the expense of renting an apartment. The 'Urfi marriage can be disastrous for the wife because if the husband leaves her without granting her a divorce, she had no legal right to seek a divorce since 'Urfi marriage was considered illegal under the old status law. While her husband could remarry, the wife is in a more difficult position. If the wife remarries, she could be accused of polyandry which is punishable by seven years in prison in Egypt. The alternative course of action is for her to remain single for the rest of her life.

There are also controversial, unofficial 'Urfi marriages, where a couple signs documents declaring themselves married. The couple does not inform their families of the marriage. Many Egyptian clerics are against this type of 'Urfi marriage calling it a cover for pre-marital sex. An extreme form of 'Urfi marriage is known as zawag al-'urfi

"To give prostitution an Islamic cover, some women enter into secret marriage contracts with their summer visitors. Known in Egypt as zawag al-'urfi, this contract is made without witnesses and typically ends in divorce by summer's end. Most of Egypt's Islamic scholars condemn this use of zawag al-'urfi."

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

Exactly what the Quran warned about. It fits perfectly.

Mazhar

For a marriage. But not with MMA which is why the Quran discouraged this practice but allowed it for those who did not have the finances and did not have the means.

What people do is not our concern. People also do Zina. We are only talking about injunctions in Qur'aan. Qur'aan nowhere allowed association-marriage with MMA without paying them in the manner of all other marriages according to the financial position of intending husbands.

Bigmo

What people do is not our concern. People also do Zina. We are only talking about injunctions in Qur'aan. Qur'aan nowhere allowed association-marriage with MMA without paying them in the manner of all other marriages according to the financial position of intending husbands.

(25) If any of you have not the means wherewith to wed free believing women, they may wed believing girls from among those whom your right hands possess And Allah hath full knowledge about your faith. Ye are one from another Wed them with the leave of their family, and give them their dowers, according to what is reasonable They should be chaste, not lustful, nor taking paramours when they are taken in wedlock, if they fall into shame, their punishment is half that for free women. This (permission) is for those among you who fear sin; but it is better for you that ye practise self-restraint. And Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

I think this is about elevating the MMA to a proper wife by doing the very things concubines do not have, usually financial and family arrangement. As urfi marriages, the families many times are not informed and there is no financial arrangement. The Quran wants those arrangements made but still allowed sexual relations on oath alone. MMA is not a wife as understood. But by doing those things she becomes a wife. This translation is a sunni one by the way since it considers MMA a slave.

nimnimak_11

The problem is not with Aymunkum but the verb whose subject is this. The Verb is Malakat. And it has nothing to do with Oaths. Verb and its Verbal Noun denote authority, governance. Human beings are authoritatively controlled, subjugated, goverend, subjected.

For physical holding of a thing only is used not Aymunkum.

Malakat has something to do with aymunkum. What we need to figure out is what this relation is that accounts for both aymunkum and malakat. Your understanding is that malakat has nothing to do with oaths. Could you clarify why?

Part of our discussion was centred on whether abstract nouns can be subject of a verb or not, but this did not end as our discussion shifted towards the word possession. Perhaps we should focus on that (abstract nouns and verbs) again? Or is there another reason for why you believe malakat cannot be related to oaths?

Mazhar

Your understanding is that malakat has nothing to do with oaths. Could you clarify why?

Just grasp the meanings of oath, its purpose, and its effect. And then ponder whether it can be the Subject-Doer-Active Participle for a transitive verb. Thereby, arrive at a conclusion.

nimnimak_11

Just grasp the meanings of oath, its purpose, and its effect. And then ponder whether it can be the Subject-Doer-Active Participle for a transitive verb. Thereby, arrive at a conclusion.

I have a conclusion that I consider workable and good at the moment. This is my understanding

The purpose and effect of an oath is such that the person who has given the oath, gains a relational status which comes with obligations, responsibilities and moral rights in relation to one or more individuals. (oath giver) (for example being sworn in as president)

Oath receiver When you give an oath, the receiver of the oath also has moral authority over you in relation to the oath you have given to them.

Thus one's oaths bind, gain authority, responsibility, rights and status over others. So IMO understanding Aymunkum as oaths is a good understanding. I haven't heard/understood a better alternative yet.

Mazhar

I have a conclusion that I consider workable and good at the moment. This is my understanding

The purpose and effect of an oath is such that the person who has given the oath, gains a relational status which comes with obligations, responsibilities and moral rights in relation to one or more individuals. (oath giver) (for example being sworn in as president)

Oath receiver When you give an oath, the receiver of the oath also has moral authority over you in relation to the oath you have given to them.

Thus one's oaths bind, gain authority, responsibility, rights and status over others. So IMO understanding Aymunkum as oaths is a good understanding. I haven't heard/understood a better alternative yet.

One is at liberty to assign whatever perception he desires to coin for a word already known to the society. But the moment you utter that word before others, the neorogical signal in their brain will give them only that perception which is generally known and accepted by that word.

You did ponder but in isolation about one word "oath" and that too with a preconceived notion to trying match it with that notion. It takes one nowhere.

What I requested to ponder was this

And then ponder whether it can be the Subject-Doer-Active Participle for a transitive verb. Thereby, arrive at a conclusion.

nimnimak_11

One is at liberty to assign whatever perception he desires to coin for a word already known to the society. But the moment you utter that word before others, the neorogical signal in their brain will give them only that perception which is generally known and accepted by that word.

You did ponder but in isolation about one word "oath" and that too with a preconceived notion to trying match it with that notion. It takes one nowhere.

What I requested to ponder was this

Yes one can do that. But I am not doing that I am talking about oaths and what they entail. Can you deny any of what I have said with regards to the nature of oaths?

We also had the discussion with regards to oath (an abstract noun) and whether it can be subject of a verb (malekat). Are you of the belief that an abstract noun such as oath cannot be subject of a verb such as malekat? If so, this conversation did not end. Last of the conversation was when you asked of me to give you example of an abstract noun being subject of a verb. I did this, but the conversation did not continue.

Thus your position is unclear.
Have you reflected on this?

Peace

Mazhar

Yes one can do that. But I am not doing that I am talking about oaths and what they entail. Can you deny any of what I have said with regards to the nature of oaths?

We also had the discussion with regards to oath (an abstract noun) and whether it can be subject of a verb (malekat). Are you of the belief that an abstract noun such as oath cannot be subject of a verb such as malekat? If so, this conversation did not end. Last of the conversation was when you asked of me to give you example of an abstract noun being subject of a verb. I did this, but the conversation did not continue.

Thus your position is unclear.

Have you reflected on this?

Peace

You seem to float on the surface of words. See again the qualification of the Verb mentioned as "Transitive". Do I need to tell you what does transitive verb mean?