Philosophy: Sex before marriage
-
Well, from my understanding, Guarding ones private parts EXCEPT, the word here is EXCEPT, upon spouses, or concubines.
The wording, anyone goes beyond is one of the transgressors, would include anyone else, including yourself.
Simple. -
Well, from my understanding, Guarding ones private parts EXCEPT, the word here is EXCEPT, upon spouses, or concubines.
The wording, anyone goes beyond is one of the transgressors, would include anyone else, including yourself.
Simple.con?cu?bine/k?NGkyoobn/
Noun
(in polygamous societies) A woman who lives with a man but has lower status than his wife or wives.
A mistress.It definitely does not refer to a concubine. MMA /=/ concubine.
-
well, we could translate it as "what your right hand possess"
Please note that the before would be from my understanding. please do not slander my understanding.
The Word used is ILA, which have the notion of EXCEPT, we have to guard our private parts except upon our spouses or "what our right hand possesses"
The same world is used when "There is no god EXCEPT (ILA), GOD"....
and whoever goes beyond this except would be a transgressor.
Thus from my understanding, Masturbation etc would be beyond using/applying your private parts with your spouses/what your right hand possess. -
The creative force is correct, there is no debate here.
The problem is when you choose to take English translations of the Quran as the authentic message of Allah. As we can never be sure of the correctness of the translation of verses, we ought to put every rule, statement, etc. that is within the English translations under the test; if it fails philosophically (such as the beating of the wife etc.), then systematically the translation is wrong. You must understand that I cannot abide to the rules of a translation.
Thats my approach also.
Things to consider philosophically
-
Is there any significance to the first time someone has sex? as in is it more potent in the bringing about of love and affection or does it fade with the number of different partners that one has? If it fades, depending on how strongly it fades, then probably sex should be limited to the minimum number of different partners as possible (thus excercising more greater caution before engaging in the act) Though it's not likely that this is the case.
-
What are the odds of catching an std or bringing about pregnancy? Obviously the riskier the odds, the less sex one should have outside of a marriage or a serious relationship.
In my opinion if it was 100 percent safe and there was no fading as in the case of 1) then there should be no limit on sex except with those whom already have partners (this would mean that i think prostituation to be acceptable)
Because of STDs and pregnancies, I would limit myself to people I know and I wouldn't do it too much since the odds are not 100 percent. I've got to accept that potentially if I make this girl pregnant that i'm gonna raise the child with her (provided that it's too late for an abortion) and that if I pass on to her an STD, then its my fault and im accountable for that. Hence the need for regular health checks. Otherwise I'd consider myself as risking too much for the other person but if I do the health check, i've done all that needs be done IMO.
Basically if someone has regular health checks, is reasonably prepared to raise a child with whomever they are allowing themselves to have sex with, then in my opnion there is nothing wrong with what they do at all. This is of course provided that 1) is not an issue.
-
-
well, we could translate it as "what your right hand possess"
Please note that the before would be from my understanding. please do not slander my understanding.
The Word used is ILA, which have the notion of EXCEPT, we have to guard our private parts except upon our spouses or "what our right hand possesses"
The same world is used when "There is no god EXCEPT (ILA), GOD"....
and whoever goes beyond this except would be a transgressor.
Thus from my understanding, Masturbation etc would be beyond using/applying your private parts with your spouses/what your right hand possess.Ma malakat aymanuhum = those who are committed to by oath
Ya-Miim-Nun = right side, right, right hand, oath, bless, lead to the right, be a cause of blessing, prosperous/fortunate/lucky.
Miim-Lam-Kaf = to rule/command/reign, be capable, to control, power/authority, king, kingdom.Nothing to do with concubines and "what your right hand possess" is also a poor translation. It becomes clear that the relationship to an MMA cannot be concurrent to that of a spouse, yet it is very similar, ie. a relationship/commitment is there.
-
And you have to keep in mind that the truly just interpretation applies to the entire time period since the revelation of the quran.
The advance of technology e.g. STI testing, contraception, safer abortions, etc cannot change the true ruling defined by God. Whatever worked for the people back then must work for the people now.
Today some things look like they could work due to technology but there is absolutely no way they can be wholesome, just or legitimate. Technology can mitigate the negative effects of evil but that is not a substitute to nor an improvement over abstaining from evil altogether.
Essentially this means that whatever forms of sexual contact were prohibited before technology are still prohibited. The straight path does not bend with time.
-
And you have to keep in mind that the truly just interpretation applies to the entire time period since the revelation of the quran.
The advance of technology e.g. STI testing, contraception, safer abortions, etc cannot change the true ruling defined by God. Whatever worked for the people back then must work for the people now.
Today some things look like they could work due to technology but there is absolutely no way they can be wholesome, just or legitimate. Technology can mitigate the negative effects of evil but that is not a substitute to nor an improvement over abstaining from evil altogether.
Essentially this means that whatever forms of sexual contact were prohibited before technology are still prohibited. The straight path does not bend with time.
Allah says that all of what is prescribed to us, is for our own good. I agree that the "rules" within the qu'ran do not bend with time, (the argument is more in my favor than in yours) but if the technological progress of a community has made one of the ''rules'' become useless and purposeless (while Allah says it is for our own good, thus it serves for a purpose and is 'useful' then either the current interpretation and translation is wrong or Allah is.
- As morality is universal, if we are honest and hopefully pure in mind, we have to agree that having sex with someone you are not engaged to is not wrong.
- There are no philosophical arguments against having sex before marriage.
- To say that we can get sick if we have sex with the wrong person to refute, is a 'risk' argument, as the same can be applied to water, food etc.
Because we do not have a correct translation of the quran, we must put any 'rule' within the traditional translations to the test, if we do not, it is blind faith.
bravo sun
You have switched from Jihadist to Cheerleader, I must admit that I much prefer this.
http//1.bp.blogspot.com/-AELcO1JpgNc/TZCYRqv7mVI/AAAAAAAAAS0/bikhS2RiTZk/s1600/Cheerleader.gif
-
I find it odd that you are still opposed to any translation, at all, as if it was completely unintelligible, when you don't like the message, yet when ever it suits you, you quote and use translations. How does that work?
Morality is not universal. It is completely subjective to individuals and cultures.
Philosophy is not universal. It is completely subjective to individuals and cultures.
Your problem is you don't believe what the Quran has to say, that there is no translation in existence that is correct and that is just wrong thinking. If you understood the Quran you would base your morality on what it teaches and you would base your philosophy based on what it says. Yet you paint yourself into a corner because you can't understand the Arabic and won't believe any translation that is against your personal philosophy, your personal sense of morality and your own personal opinion/theology of what you wished the Quran actually said.
-
Peace, everyone.
I'm new to the forum but if I may, I would like to give my philosophical (if you can call it that) view on this. !As I see it, sex before marriage is philosophically an issue due to the precedent it sets. Assuming that sex before marriage is okay, and then it is okay to theoretically have sex with anyone. The issue is then a large incentive of marriage is gone. Now I'm not saying that marriage is all about sex, but as muslim, we do find that a large component of it is. We want to meet the right person, to share something intimate (sex) to eventually have children and share our lives with them correct?
So if we can have sex outside of marriage, then we can also have children outside of marriage and then you reach the point of, "well what's the point of marriage?".
This is dangerous territory, because marriage is not just simply saying "I agree to have sex with you and only you and one day raise a family", marriage is a bond, agreement and vow to care and protect each other, help each other and respect each other. Marriage is there for a purpose, it creates a binding agreement of people that should not be broken unless it must. That is why Allah (swt) dislikes divorce so much, because it undermines the idea of marriage (a vow, oath), however as he is all forgiving, all merciful he understands that we do not always pick the right person for this bond and make mistakes.
Think of it like this, if sex before marriage is okay, then what's the point of marriage at all? Surely we can then just decide between ourselves that "yeah, I want children with you". I mean you've probably had sex with people before that point and she/he has so they can't complain if after children you decide to have sex with other people too.
All of this eventually develops into the mind-set a lot of western people have today, which is "oh what's the point of marriage; it's just a stupid ceremony". And they're right, if you can do everything outside of marriage as what you can do within, then marriage does become pointless.
This is my mind is why sex before marriage cannot be allowed. As it eventually undermines the idea of marriage. And Allah (swt) created marriage for a reason.
-
I was hoping you'd stick with your silent cheerleader persona, I am disappointed, but thank you for sparing me from your hypocritical courtesies this time.
I find it odd that you are still opposed to any translation, at all, as if it was completely unintelligible, when you don't like the message, yet when ever it suits you, you quote and use translations. How does that work?
I bother you, and your likes, because instead of blindly following rules, I try to reason, understand and use the intellect and heart Allah has given me.
Morality is not universal. It is completely subjective to individuals and cultures.
Either you do not understand what morality is or you are a psychopath.
Philosophy is not universal. It is completely subjective to individuals and cultures.
I never said it was. To say 'philosophy is not universal' makes absolutely no sense, it is like saying 'science is not universal', 'theology is not universal' or 'coca cola is not a computer' there's absolutely no relation between the two.
Your problem is you don't believe what the Quran has to say, that there is no translation in existence that is correct and that is just wrong thinking. If you understood the Quran you would base your morality on what it teaches and you would base your philosophy based on what it says. Yet you paint yourself into a corner because you can't understand the Arabic and won't believe any translation that is against your personal philosophy, your personal sense of morality and your own personal opinion/theology of what you wished the Quran actually said.
I hope you understand the seriousness of this accusation and that you will stand by your word when you will be judged. I really find it amusing and hypocritical to read such from someone that supposedly adheres to the deen of islam.
The difference between you and I, is that you prefer blind faith over certainty, translations and interpretations of men over the word of Allah. The difference between you and I, is that if all of the translators of the quran, rendered some verses as ''murder all of the disbelievers and rape all of their women'', ''homosexuality is an abomination'', ''you have the right to beat your wife if she disobeys you'' and other tripe, you would believe and apply it for the simple fact that it was supposedly said by the maker; while I would reject it because it goes against morality and is indefensible philosophically.
You are another version of the mullahs, sheikhs, pastors, popes etc. that by blindly believing, conducted horrific operations because of what was said in a book. You are a subjugated and enslaved mind, anyone with sense will conclude the same after reading this post of yours.
-
LoL! To bad the Quran doesn't say those things but then again, how would you know?
And I base my summation of your personal "philosophy" upon your own writings and non-quranic arguments and reasonings.
The difference between you and I is I look at what the Arabic says and use that as a guide and discuss the Quran with others, while you strive to make the Quran conform to your personal opinions and your own personal theologies taken from SOL, shielding that fact by using "philosophy" as some sort of "universal science". People have asked you repeatedly to give evidence from Quran for your views but you won't. You dance around subjects and questions to you because you simply can't or won't base them on Quran and don't have the courage to simply state bluntly what you actually believe because it can't be justified from the Quran. We have been down this road before with the same excuses that you can't use any translations and you can't read the Arabic etc etc.
Do you as you wish but you shouldn't get so upset when questioned about your inconsistencies and contradictions in your views or methods.
-
blablablablabla
blablablablalblablablablablablalblablblablabla! blablabla! BLAAAAAAAAAH.
Yes, yes... as you wish. Before bringing Arabic to the table, know that I am a native Arabic speaker and reader, while you are an American. So please, let's not even go there.
Q, please take notes, because this is how we debate, by bringing intelligent counter arguments, and not by acting as a demented jihadist.
As I see it, sex before marriage is philosophically an issue due to the precedent it sets. Assuming that sex before marriage is okay, and then it is okay to theoretically have sex with anyone. The issue is then a large incentive of marriage is gone. Now I'm not saying that marriage is all about sex, but as muslim, we do find that a large component of it is. We want to meet the right person, to share something intimate (sex) to eventually have children and share our lives with them correct?
So if we can have sex outside of marriage, then we can also have children outside of marriage and then you reach the point of, "well what's the point of marriage?".
Well, not really.
A good parallel would be that if one possesses a bow, one can either use it for pleasure and amusement, hunt or harm. Therefore, one can have fun with the bow, without systematically hurting or hunting anyone or anything. Similarly, one can hunt without having fun with the bow.
What is defended here is the use of the bow exclusively for pleasure. You are arguing against having sex and making children before marriage, and not against having sex before marriage for pleasure only.
Salaam to you and welcome to the forum!
-
Allah says that all of what is prescribed to us, is for our own good. I agree that the "rules" within the qu'ran do not bend with time, (the argument is more in my favor than in yours) but if the technological progress of a community has made one of the ''rules'' become useless and purposeless (while Allah says it is for our own good, thus it serves for a purpose and is 'useful' then either the current interpretation and translation is wrong or Allah is.
What is our own good? We are created purely for the purpose of serving God. Like you use a hammer to hit a nail, you use a human to shape a universe. Our own good is that which promotes our ability to serve the creator.
- As morality is universal, if we are honest and hopefully pure in mind, we have to agree that having sex with someone you are not engaged to is not wrong.
- There are no philosophical arguments against having sex before marriage.
- To say that we can get sick if we have sex with the wrong person to refute, is a 'risk' argument, as the same can be applied to water, food etc.
Because we do not have a correct translation of the quran, we must put any 'rule' within the traditional translations to the test, if we do not, it is blind faith.
Flat out incorrect because it disregards the way in which our actions condition our reward pathways. One can either value their significant other or just value the fact that they have a relationship.
Sex within controlled relationships hardwires the association in your brain that "sex = person X". Conversely if you have say, 40 sexual partners then you have the association "sex = persons (1,2,3,...,40)". That's a large set. When #41 comes along, they are just 2.5% of your sexual experience. In the same way that one develops a drug tolerance, one develops a love tolerance. You will treat that person as if they are 2.5%, not 100% the higher the number, the more disposable humans become.
That's a basic argument, there are many many more. But the key thing is that if you can't accept that God says to not even go near to zina because it is an evil way then you will have a hard time here. I mean I went through the very same questioning process while transitioning from hadeeth to quran.
But it became abundantly clear that God created marriage and structure to be the bedrock of a nation. If everybody is banging everybody else then the family structure degrades and that itself is like the roots of a magnificent tree rotting away so that the entire thing collapses in spite of how majestic it looks above ground. Purely my own observation - people who engage in routine casual sex are decieved by its allure, stuck in a cycle going back and forth between the euphoria of a new partner, and sadness, pain and resentment.
Another nuance a man cheats on his wife with another woman. He does not tell her that he is married. They are caught and there are four witnesses to prove it. Now, how can you punish the person who just had sex, when they did not know? Yet the reality is that two people conspired to harm another person and hence their entire family and society - this type of evil sends huge shockwaves through communities, it is not just an act at face value.
You have that someone experiencing a type of pain for which the punishment upon the perpetrator is 100 lashes yet they are simultaneously guilty and not guilty! If zina = any form of sex outside of marriage then this nuance ceases to matter because their innocence or guilt is definite.
-
Sex within controlled relationships hardwires the association in your brain that "sex = person X". Conversely if you have say, 40 sexual partners then you have the association "sex = persons (1,2,3,...,40)". That's a large set. When #41 comes along, they are just 2.5% of your sexual experience. In the same way that one develops a drug tolerance, one develops a love tolerance. You will treat that person as if they are 2.5%, not 100% the higher the number, the more disposable humans become.
This is really just speculation. I am sure that sex with someone you love, is different than sex with someone you do not love. That being said, and by your logic, even masturbation to pornography (or just by imagining) would fit into the category of "zina", would it not?
-
A good parallel would be that if one possesses a bow, one can either use it for pleasure and amusement, hunt or harm. Therefore, one can have fun with the bow, without systematically hurting or hunting anyone or anything. Similarly, one can hunt without having fun with the bow.
What is defended here is the use of the bow exclusively for pleasure. You are arguing against having sex and making children before marriage, and not against having sex before marriage for pleasure only.
Salaam to you and welcome to the forum!
Thanks for the welcome brother,
You're not quite getting my point. My point is, using your example, if the bow can be used for pleasure and amusement and you're allowed to the possess the bow at all, then one can conclude that people will use it for amusement as well as pleasure. Because you are arguing the Quran allows the use of the 'bow' for pleasure, to hunt, you then have to accept it says nothing about using it to amuse or hurt. This is because it simply bans the use of the bow at all, meaning it doesn't have to go into banning it for pleasure or amusement.
There is nothing in the Quran about children outside of marriage. Only sex outside of marriage. This is because if one cannot have sex outside of marriage, one can obviously not have children (unless they adopt). However if one follow's your thought process then someone can have children after marriage. Obviously nothing can stop the production of children 100% so inevitably you'll have children born out of wedlock.
Thus inevitably you'll undermine marriage. As per my point before.
And don't bring talk about abortion and such. Firstly because a lot of people dislike abortion and will refuse to take it (surprising even a lot of westerners hate abortion) and secondly because one can argue it is murder, which is strictly forbidden in Islam.
I never said it was. To say 'philosophy is not universal' makes absolutely no sense, it is like saying 'science is not universal', 'theology is not universal' or 'coca cola is not a computer' there's absolutely no relation between the two.
Philosophy isn't universal. Everyone has their own form of their personal philosophy, same with theology and coca cola is not a computer (unless you named your computer coca cola). Science IS universal as it follows logic and while scientific theories might be different in places, scientific fact is not. You asked for a philosophical argument and Q replied that philosophy isn't universal so no one will give you an argument that will change your own philosophy.
Not only that people here probably like to think they follow the Quran as their own 'Philosophy' and don't see it as a philosophy (neither do I) which could also be Q's point.
Ultimately I agree with everyone here, the Quran outright says no sex before marriage. I'm just trying to humour you with non-quranic arguments. But for me the fact Quran says not to do it is more then enough and I'll never hope to understand Allah (Swt)'s full reasons behind it and neither will you. But that is faith.
-
I have a question for the advocators of "sex is only legal in wedlock". Would you find it right for a couple to have sex if they are arguing with one another constantly, the man hits the wife and shouts at her, does not care for her, etc. to have sex, or a couple in a relationship that is fully in love and cares for one another?
Just from an instinctive point of view, which would be correct?
-
Salam all, lordfox
I have not been talking to you before, counting by your posts you are somewhat new and I have been away for a while. Nonetheless, a belated welcome and nice to meet you!
I find your question quite interesting and (sadly) one that I have had too much experience with. I think this question is very important because so many people are schackled down by their learned morality, a morality which is not taught by Allah but by people who think they know what Allah wants.
The fact is that Allah has given us the pleasure sex brings just like He has given us other pleasures such as listening to music, wearing beautiful clothes or eating a nice chateubriand with potato wedges and a bluecheese sauce...........just made myself hungry.......
Anyways, or rather BUT.......we are not allowed to transgress. If I am pimping myself to impress others I am doing wrong, if my neighbour goes hungry I cannot stuff my face without sharing. So what about sex? If I am a single dude what is it that makes it wrong to have sex with a single dudette? Absolutely nothing......just like the chateubriand has nothing wrong the sex is not wrong...
BUT sex can bring misery, poverty and hunger to an innocent human being, namely the possible result of a pregnancy. A child needs a loving and caring family because in a sense the parents are the childs God. We are the substitute for God until the child can comprehend what God is, and growing up without a mother and father is to live without God. Therefore Allah has given us the decreed that if you are not willing to take care of a child you should abstain.
So my conclusion is that mankind should just stop being busybodies and stop punishing people mentally and physically because they are enjoying a pleasure given to them by Allah BUT people should know they "are playing with fire" and if they do not take responsibility for their actions they will probably have a lot to answer for on the day of judgement.
emil
N.B we are not talking about lewdness, that is a totally different subject
ps. please forgive the typos, writing on my iphone (fat fingers)
-
I have a question for the advocators of "sex is only legal in wedlock". Would you find it right for a couple to have sex if they are arguing with one another constantly, the man hits the wife and shouts at her, does not care for her, etc. to have sex, or a couple in a relationship that is fully in love and cares for one another?
Just from an instinctive point of view, which would be correct?
If a man hits his wife, or they argue constantly or whatever else you put down, then they should get a divorce. Then they will stop having sex. If a marriage is not working then that's what you do. That's what the Quran tells you to do.
A couple that is fully in love and cares for one another and what to go to the 'next level' can get married. If they love each other so much what is the issue? They both want to be together obviously so marriage would cement this and then they can fully experience each other.