How sex before Marriage is not haram (prohibited) according to the Quran
-
Pl read with Reply 920
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
-
Pl read with Reply 920
Yes, this has been done. Please look at my reply 936 with regards to the effect of oaths. If you then find anything in there that contradicts your view thus go against your understanding at 920 then please specify.
-
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?
If you feel this is necessary, then do so. At the moment I do not think this is necessary as it is grammatically fine AFAIK for oath to be subject of a transitive verb. Do you disagree?
-
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.
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. -
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.What happens when one agrees to something and also gives their oath/promise?
IMO the following
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.
Do you disagree with the above effects?
-
The oath neither binds anyone else, nor it attains authority over anyone else. By oath one binds only one's self. Oath is a solemn promise.
Husband and wife, give oaths at marriage. Within those oaths, they come to have moral rights and authority over one another. For example, if the husband cheats on her wife, he has gone against his obligations, responsibilities and what his status entailed.
She thus has moral authority over him and can (if proven sufficiently) get him punished for zina. This is because he has gone against the oaths he gave and received from and to his wife.
When one promises or gives an oath, they take on obligations. Thus a wife can have a legal and moral claim upon her husband to not have an affair. To provide for their children etc. In this case there is both authority, obligation and responsibility all based on oaths.
x may promise himself not to be lazy any more but he has no obligations to anyone else other than himself thus no one else has a moral claim upon x and x has no duties or obligation to anyone else.
-
I now feel as if I am visiting a ward of special children on this forum.
birds of feather flock/yoked together
https//encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbnANd9GcQ6QgY-6rKsA3QtXggtDH_ANdt7t4-6958vmB-6QQrAW1YA-ohRGQ
-
Noon and Niminimak!!!
Mazhar and what possess your right hand ;D
birds of feather flock/yoked together
https//encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbnANd9GcQ6QgY-6rKsA3QtXggtDH_ANdt7t4-6958vmB-6QQrAW1YA-ohRGQ
-
Noon and Mazhar, take your differences elsewhere.
Also Mazhar if you don't have any respect for me, for whatever reason, then perhaps it is best if we don't continue our discussion. I think it'd be pointless. If you can provide reasonable answers to replies 942, 936 and 944 and engage in a respectful and peaceful discussion, then ok. If not, then I will wait for other views, before making conclusions or summaries.
Peace
-
Let us wait and see.
Ok, judging by the above and lack of response on my posts, I will conclude our "discussion" on oaths.
A provisional conclusion with regards to aymunkum
-
Mazhar suggested that "oath" cannot be subject of a transitive verb because it is an abstract noun. This appears to be a mistake as abstract nouns can be subject of transitive verbs.
-
Mazhar suggested that an oath
neither binds anyone else, nor it attains authority over anyone else. By oath one binds only one's self.
I find the above problematic as it fails to take into account a distinction between oaths made in relation to the self, and oaths made in relation to others. Oaths made in relation to others bring about moral responsibility and obligations. For example If Jack promises Jill that he will give her money for the car, then he is morally obliged to give her money for the car. In this way, Jill has authority over jack with regards to the promise she has received from him. She has the moral right and authority to make the claim Jack give me money for the car.
Similarly in relationships one becomes girlfriend, fiance or wife to another individual via oaths. It is the oaths that bind the two as husband and wife. If there was no exchange of oaths between the two, they would not be husband and wife. Hence those whom your oaths or oath possess encompasses any relation where oaths bind two or more individuals together. Examples include doctors, nurses and so on.
-
-
So oath and contract, oath and agreement, oath and marriage are synonyms in new "dictionary".
No, if you look at my replies, that's not what's been said.
If you have the belief that anyone who engages in sexual activity without a marriage certificate is
mentally and sexually sick.
Then it's pretty obvious your biased. Have you considered that your belief may be wrong? That getting intimate is beneficial and at times necessary to finding a marriage partner effectively? That prohibiting something that is not prohibited despite it having the potential for much good is very wrong? That there is more to marriage than just wealth?
I recommend you find out more about sex and the reasons why people have sex before drawing negative conclusions about others and refrain from discussing something that you may not have an open mind towards. I thought you could keep an open mind and discuss peacefully but after comments like reply 949, I no longer believe this.
I'm ok to discuss so long as you can keep an open mind, dignity and character in the discussion but given the last few replies, I doubt this.
Peace
-
Quote
mentally and sexually sick.This quote is probably taken from this post
study of all occurences of MMA in Quran leaves very little chance for them to be anything else but "concubines"
Mazhar Yes it could be, but only for those who are mentally and sexually sick-the debauch. Women are not permissible to be sought for this purpose.
Thereby, you the independent Men with insufficient resources take them into Wed-fold with the prior permission of their Guardians-House Masters, with whom she is the maid servant.
And pay them their Wed-gifts and committed obligations in the well known manner as is paid to a women taken in the protective fold of Matrimonial Bond making her pearl of life-household opposite the style and manner of payment to debauch-professional women who act for the occasional "outflow of water/satisfying sexual lust". And nor in the manner of payment as is made to such women who maintain secret intimate relationship acting as keeps-concubine. -
It is
-
Quotes are self explanatory.
Thereby, you the independent Men with insufficient resources take them into Wed-fold with the prior permission of their Guardians-House Masters, with whom she is the maid servant.
And pay them their Wed-gifts and committed obligations in the well known manner as is paid to a women taken in the protective fold of Matrimonial Bond making her pearl of life-household opposite the style and manner of payment to debauch-professional women who act for the occasional "outflow of water/satisfying sexual lust". And nor in the manner of payment as is made to such women who maintain secret intimate relationship acting as keeps-concubine.And translations are sometimes poor with words inserted to force the interpretation one wants to draw as is evident in your interpretation above (highlighted in bold)
Let's marry maid servants if we can't marry the guarded women...I am not sure this can be verified by one's reason.