Does 24:3 indeed forbid us to marry fornicators!!!?????
-
Problem is that Quranically we are to only have sex with the one we have married thus anything further is unlawful sex and thus what Zina is usually defined as. Fornication is sex before marriage and that is what happens commonly in the west.
However 243 I want to know as a result is if we indeed can't go with one who has done zina or not (which would be rather hard for someone in the west as most do fornicate) or if thats only a continuation of 242s definition. However I have seen some people say 243 is only talking about adultery which I have not seen too much evidence to explain why.
Regardless I am still rather confused on this issue.
Salam brother
Just want to clarify that I am not arguing against you in any way, so forgive me if my words happen to come across in such a way.
If fornication means sex outside marriage the way you describe it would make the entire non-muslim world fornicators. Because if the act of marriage is what making sex legit then the marriage must be according to islam. All other religious and court marriages are considered null since they are not according to Allah's last guidance. There is no room for exceptions here, either a marriage is recognised or not. If one type of non-islamic marriage is recognised then all types of marriages must be recognised. We cannot pick and choose which one is ok and which is not, that is without being discriminative of course.
In other words, the majority of people in this world are fornicators, not only in the west but the east, north and south as well.......is this how "zani" should be interpreted? I think not.....A "fornicator" can be the most loyal person in the world, just because someone is not married by a body recognised by You does not mean they are not following monogamy and loyalty. So it is not the right kind of marriage certificate that governs what a zani is, but what is in the heart. If there is love and loyalty and monogamy it is recognised by Allah, therefore it should be recognised by us.You are also forgetting that in numerous places in the Quran Allah tells us that we can repent and He will forgive. The way you are interpreting 243 implies that we should not forgive. Once a cheater always a cheater, once a slut always a slut. ........this means that all the non-virgin converts to islam will never be allowed to marry....... because their non-islam marriage is not recognised as a legal marriage, therefore they are fornicators, and fornicators are not allowed to marry muslims.......so how does this work? It doesnt work that well IMO.....243 is talking about the future, not the past.....that makes more sense
Zani/Zina means illegal sex, what is it about fornication that makes it illegal? I think you are confusing fornication with casual sex. That is sex without any committment towards your partner. You have no obligation to stay monogamous, no financial committment and worse of all, you have no parental committment towards a possible offspring.
We should not marry those who will not be loyal, who will not committ to the relationship or those who will not recognise one God. If a person will not committ to one God, to you and to monogamy you cannot marry him/her (243).
-
You are forbidden to marry them until they repent and totally change their ways and thus they leave behind the status of 'zani'.
If a person has cheated on their partners, do you think that those guys are going to be good partners for YOU? Do you think they have demonstrated that they even give two shits about God? Do you think they are going to invite you to anything but the fire? You're better off sticking it in a hornet's nest.
rotfl
-
I don't care about those who cheated on me as thats ADULTERY. I was referring to the other meaning of Zina which is Fornication which I don't see why we would be forbidden to go with considering they cheated on no one and only had sex before marriage there.
Here in the west, adultery isn't THAT common so I don't worry about that. It's Fornication that I worry about which is the other meaning of Zina and thus why I find it illogical as to why we can't go with them.
I would think 243 still is a continuation of 242 possibly meaning that once 4 have seen them in the act of Zina and therefore lashed, this would be the next step, but not sure and thus I want clearance and such.
Consider this also
According to corpus, these are all the occurrences of zani
http//corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=zny#(2421).I think this implies that the Quran has only one meaning in mind when using zay-nun-ya and that this meaning is in relation to sexual activity. Mounting upon a thing (a meaning from the root of the word) and sex outside of marriage are both indicative of sexual activity. Which to choose?
This must be determined via implications found in the Quran. Now I will number my points
-
There is only one punishment given for zina. This logically must imply 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 -
Zina means impermissible sexual activity (illegal mounting) (as suggested by others). This is implied by the following found in lane
He committed fornication or adultery; (El-Mun?wee, Er-R?ghib, TA with her (MA but accord. to El-Mun?wee, in the proper language of the Arabs, signifies the mounting upon a thing; and in the language of the law it signifies the commission of the act first mentioned above
Primarily based on 1 and secondarily based on 2 my conclusion
Zina = adultery only provided that no other illegal sexual activity with equal moral wrongness can be found in the Quran.If your after marriage, make sure it's for the right reasons and don't turn away from a potential marriage partner for the wrong reasons.
Also take 424-25 into account.
IMO make sure that they (potential marriage partner) are not the sort to take secret lovers or of the sort to commit adultery or lewdness. AND most importantly, marry them for security or for staring a family...just don't marry them for the sake of sex.
Peace and God bless
-
-
What is marriage? Many couples in the west that technically would be considered as fornication are de facto marriages. Many couples live together and function as married couples, so they are married couples. They are not hiding, they have entered a commitment.
Another thing, like emil says is promiscuity, but I think it is a gross error to bundle everything in a big bag with the label zina. People who knowingly live together and share life and even have children, are married couples. Who is being deceived? The lack of a certain paper? People married before there was any paper in the world. Marriage has not been invented with civil registries and courts. The formulas administering it may have evolved and complicated, but the fact is still the same.
Salaam
Peace,
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THIS! A piece of paper does not make one married...the commitment before Allah is what makes one married!!!
-Amina
-
Zani/Zina means illegal sex, what is it about fornication that makes it illegal? I think you are confusing fornication with casual sex. That is sex without any committment towards your partner. You have no obligation to stay monogamous, no financial committment and worse of all, you have no parental committment towards a possible offspring.
We should not marry those who will not be loyal, who will not committ to the relationship or those who will not recognise one God. If a person will not committ to one God, to you and to monogamy you cannot marry him/her (243).
-
Zani/Zina means illegal sex, what is it about fornication that makes it illegal? I think you are confusing fornication with casual sex. That is sex without any committment towards your partner. You have no obligation to stay monogamous, no financial committment and worse of all, you have no parental committment towards a possible offspring.
We should not marry those who will not be loyal, who will not committ to the relationship or those who will not recognise one God. If a person will not committ to one God, to you and to monogamy you cannot marry him/her (243).
bravo]
I think you summed it up with that statement... )
-
Yeah add a third cosign to that...
Sometimes the simplest of phrases transfer 100% of the information.
People should be aware of the pretend committment that is rife today. Couple meet, "I wuv u for eva and eva". 2 years later, they break up as if nothing happened. Next relationship "our love is FOREVER! Nothing can come between us <3"... Relationship lasts one year. Both parties knew in the first place that they really didn't care but the facade of committment and the faux heartbreak (real pain of course) when it all ends is so inevitable. It's like watching someone get run over by a steamroller in the desert, you can see it coming a mile off and it happens again and again and again. Each time both parties will play confused but do they not know in the deepest depths of their hearts what they are doing?
And this is what I am trying to get at; this is why I'd still say 'fornicators' means 'sex w/o marriage' in addition to adultery. This is absolutely pandemic in the western world. The overwhelming majority of adolescents growing up now will have around 4-10 long term sexual relationships by the age of 25 along with a string of one-night stands. I am not sure what the precise statistics are. The most fundamentally important verse regarding this
424 (...) lawful for you are (all women) besides those (already married), provided that you seek them with your property, taking them in marriage not committing fornication/lewdness/indecency/lustfulness (musfina).
Now all of the kind of relationships I am talking about have two things in common there is no seeking with property; thus the inevitable dissolution of the relationship is only an emotional loss and does not hit them financially. The promiscuous mind only really cares about the finances! Likewise we might wish to investigate what 'fahisha' entails.
I think clearly from this alone, those who are promiscuous are explicitly forbidden. Fundamentally the nikah committment is explicitly a financial committment to begin with; if it does not involve this then the act is assuredly zina or if not that then fahisha at least. The 'committment before Allah' is indeed one that requires paper. Or plastic, your choice really. Cha-ching either way. Not only that but the command is on the male to transfer wealth to the female and not the other way round. Isn't it ironic that a lot of western countries have this transfer of wealth take place but funnily enough only when it's time to part ways in the divorce court. This is what happens when a society's individuals claim lordship over themselves in preference to God the Supreme.
-
People should be aware of the pretend committment that is rife today.
There are also serious commitments today. Many, if not all would agree that sex is an important aspect of intimacy. To get married without this intimacy may be a mistake.
On the other hand, there is some emphasis on choosing the right person to lose your virginity to since one's first time is important, so it may be that it is wiser to keep off of sex until marriage.
424 (...) lawful for you are (all women) besides those (already married), provided that you seek them with your property, taking them in marriage not committing fornication/lewdness/indecency/lustfulness (musfina).
Regarding 424
423-25 is instruction and advice with regards to getting married. 424 is saying when you choose to marry, you should do so for the sake of becoming/being muhsineena (guarded, protected, independent) and not for the sake of musafihunna (sex, lustfulness, adultery)
Understanding musafihunna as fornication makes no sense since one does not marry someone for the sake of committing fornication with them. It is logically impossible.
This is obviously common sense. No one should be so unwise as to marry for the sake of having sex and 424 is making that pretty clear.
This implies nothing with regards to getting into a relationship for sex or with regards to having sex in a relationship. All it is saying is don't marry for the sake of sex, marry for the sake of protection or independence.
Peace
-
Note that if the marriage contract is invalid to God (as in the case of musafihina) then the sexual act would be classed as fahisha/zina. Then you may factor in this
And if you wish to have (one) wife in place of another and you have given one of them a heap of gold, then take not from it anything; would you take it by slandering (her) and (doing her) manifest wrong?
And how can you take it when one of you has already gone in to the other and they have made with you a firm covenant?
The first and foremost requirement is that there is a transfer of wealth between the man and the woman. This then legalises the marriage. We can see from the above two verses that the sex act takes place after the transfer of wealth. A sex act without a transfer of wealth or with a net zero of wealth is described by God as slander/a clear evil (wa-ith'man mubnan).
-
Note that if the marriage contract is invalid to God (as in the case of musafihina) then the sexual act would be classed as fahisha/zina.
It can be said that based on 424, a marriage proposed and accepted for the wrong reasons (i.e sex) is disapproved by the God and advised against because it has obvious consequences (most likely a bitter divorce or an unstable relationship) but how does this lead to the belief that sexual activity is lewd/fahisha or immoral within such a marriage?
The first and foremost requirement is that there is a transfer of wealth between the man and the woman. This then legalises the marriage. We can see from the above two verses that the sex act takes place after the transfer of wealth. A sex act without a transfer of wealth or with a net zero of wealth is described by God as slander/a clear evil (wa-ith'man mubnan).
420 is clear in saying, don't take what you gave to your wife when you want to change this wife for another and that is all it is saying. There is no indication in this that sex is done after a transfer of wealth.
421 Emphasises the wrongness of taking what is given to the wife based on intimacy/sex and a firm covenant.
If we are told that it's wrong to take back things from our wives because we have had sex with them and have made with them a firm covenant, this does not warrant the belief that any sexual activity that has no marriage certificate in place is lewd or zina.
Peace