sex before marriage

nimnimak_11

3355 does kill the notion that MMAs are exclusively fiances however it does not wipe out the possibility that it can be a fiance.

Assuming that an MMA is someone whom you have some contract or oath with. This could range from a doctor or nanny to a g/f or fiance.
My point here is that in the case of 3355, it may be that whilst being married, the wives could expose parts to like a doctor or a nanny but could not expose to a boyfriend (as that would be wrong!) and this can be said because whilst being married, certain commitments are in place. One of which is that should you have like a fling with someone who isn't your spouse, whilst you do have a spouse, then that's classifies as lewdness. But if your showing you doctor your parts (for the right reasons) then it's not lewdness. So here you are exposing to your MMA but not commiting lewdness.

Now if your not married and you get an MMA (the fiance type) then there is no lewdness if you unguard your parts to them as you don't have other commitments. You have however got to act in accordnace with not being lewd. So hiring a prostitue, might fall into the category of lewdness but being in a relationship won't.

MMA is still MMA but it entails various roles in which all are to do with oaths and contractuall agreement. I'm considering this view at the moment.

@OPF 2433 suggests that we abstain untill marriage. I'm assuming that it's sex that we're abstaining from. I just remembered this verse with respect to condoning marriage for sex. Have not come across any for MMAs which might imply that sex is best left untill marriage.

AlFajr

Yes that is my approach. That all things are permissible unless forbidden.

@Aalmakto.
True it is a higher degree of exposure. But what verse do we have in the Quran that places any limitation on how much we expose or what we do with these parts with erm...our respective MMAs? What's to stop us thinking that we could do all things except actual penetration? The only verse to go by are the ones that talk of lewdness but how can we judge what is lewdness? Unless it's some clear wrong like some kind of fetish or something which we can maby relate to wickedness, i can't see how we can judge something else as lewd when "unguarding" private parts to respective MMAs.

I would say this exposure is of a non-sexual nature. Perhaps its something like, just changing clothes or having a shower.

Some verses about lewdness.

1732 And do not come near adultery, for it is lewdness and an evil path.

6151...and do not come near lewdness, what is evident of it and what is subtle...

5332 They avoid major sins and lewdness, except for minor offences. Your Lord is with vast forgiveness. He has been fully aware of you since He initiated you from the earth, and while you were embryos in the wombs of your mothers. Therefore, do not ascribe purity to yourselves; He is fully aware of the righteous.

Wakas

peace,

@OPF
That verse 2223 does not mention wives. It says women. I do not know of any verse that states sex with spouses to be permissible. Rather it always uses the term nisa meaning sex is permissible with women. But obviously not just any women. Whether it's limited to zawj women or not is what we're trying to figure out here.

Can you clarify for the forum what method you used and how much research you did before making the above statement? (or just the part in bold if my request is too taxing)

This is to help forum members evaluate your study method and thoroughness, and perhaps bear this in mind when reading your posts on this topic.

Thanks.

nimnimak_11

peace,

Can you clarify for the forum what method you used and how much research you did before making the above statement? (or just the part in bold if my request is too taxing)

This is to help forum members evaluate your study method and thoroughness, and perhaps bear this in mind when reading your posts on this topic.

Thanks.

Peace Wakas

In this instance I did not search anything. I used my memory because before (not so long ago) I used the old version of globalquran and used it to search all the verses that included the following words wife, spouse. I ticked all english translations to increase my chance of obtaining all relevant verses

Then going on to free-minds.org, i chose the Quran section (as this would also provide the arabic version of verses from the Quran) Using the verses i had found from globalquran i individually went after them in arabic to see whether the term zawj or nisa or some other term is used. I did this because i found some translators translated nisa to wife (as was the case with 2223) and i did not agree with this.

With respect to the issue of sex, from what i picked up in the verses which i got from globalquran, i went to see what arabic word actually means sex in the verses which it was used. I used corpus.quran.com/wordbyword which not only provided the arabic word but also the root of the word which in turn meant that i could use the good resources at studyquran.co.uk/PRlonline to find the meanings of the root and verses it occures at.

Then i looked at those verses to see if there were any verses which implied sex to be exclusive for marriage and found none. The term zawj (if i remember correctly) was used but not in a manner that made sex exclusive to zawj because there were verses with regards to sex with nisa. Thus i concluded sex not to be exclusive to zawj and that is why I wrote in my second to last post which you have quoted "I do not know of any verse that states sex with spouses to be permissible".

However you will find in my post after the one you have quoted, that i have cited 2433 which i remember last discussing on the other thread. I do not know of any other verses which literally state that sex is permissible with zawj. Although it should be said 2433 does not state this but it still does strongly imply that sex is best left till marriage. What i wrote in my post which you have quoted, was meant zawj exclusively. I should have clarified.

If there are any other questions or pieces of advice or criticism then do post as it is better said then not IMO.

nimnimak_11

Peace all

For clarification purposes.

What i meant when i said "I do not know of any verse that states sex with spouses to be permissible" was a verse literally saying you can have sex with your zawj or that sex with your zawj has been made permissible. The sort you'll find applied to nisa in 2187.

The reason i said this was to emphasise how there are no verses that make the act permissible and no verses that make the act forbidden exclusively with spouse. I had however forgotten about 2433 which does imply the act to be exclusive with the zawj.

Sorry about any misunderstandings. I was writing in haste. Hope this clarifies.

Wakas

peace nimnimak_11,

When cross-referencing a word, you should use the root occurrences, not an English word search via an English translation. To find the Arabic root now is extremely simple with corpus.quran.com In fact, now there is no excuse because it could not be easier, anyone can do it.

The reason I asked what I did was to highlight your methodology and reasoning, which I have found to be quite poor. By adopting a poor method you are doomed to this type of outcome and/or a struggle for the answer. Understanding AQ is quite simple BUT it requires the reader to follow ITS method/thinking in order to determine what it is saying. This is the hard part making oneself conform to it rather than making it conform to you. This is the struggle we all face. Until you conquer yourself you will struggle to conquer it. I simply cannot stress this enough.

In any case, here are some simple examples

Is zawj the exclusive word for spouse in AQ? (this is your underlying assumption it would seem)
What is the Arabic word for "sex"? What are the variations, if any?
Is your statement of "sex with nisa" the same as AQ saying "sex with YOUR nisa"?
You mention 2223 and dismiss it, but if you had studied only a few verses further you would have found some evidence.

For an article on study method, I recommend
http//www.quran434.com/study-method.html

unknownuser

Peace Nima

Wakas gave you some good advice. This is advice we all can learn from. Conforming to the message is higly important if you want to make a quality study of it.

"When man doesn't change his life to fit his faith, he will change his faith to fit his life."

SwedenMajidah

Peace,

Long time I posted here...

Sex before marriage well we can do as we please but the only one we fool is ourselves anyway.

I am very openminded as everyone knows Sex is a very private issue and during this awaken time we are living there are loads of information
to both gain from and misleading too as well.

Everyone has to find his own understanding and that goes for all issues.

Quran is a reminder and very deep scripture and it's purpose is the best for mankind. So if you still think that God, Allah, Jehova etc is going to put you in hell because you have sinned and have sex before marriage then you haven't really yet leveled up to what Quran and Islam is about.

When we do something that is not good for us we will create a bad condition and this if repeated can be like a living hell for us. same goes for good things
and then instead you create a paradise for yourself already here on earth. All good things we collect will be brought back to us in so much power. More good you do more good you will gain and more bad you do more bad you will feel.

The best thing is to keep to one partner and search for your soulmate that is the ideal way. Sex is desire and you can feed it in many ways not necessary to have sexual intercourse with someone. Touch yourself is a good solution for both gender, and it's clean and safe too.

Peace

Maria

nimnimak_11

Peace Wakas

When cross-referencing a word, you should use the root occurrences, not an English word search via an English translation. To find the Arabic root now is extremely simple with corpus.quran.com In fact, now there is no excuse because it could not be easier, anyone can do it.

I did use corpus to find the arabic words which in the Quran were translated as sex or something associated with sex and in turn i also used it to find the roots of those words. After finding the roots, i used studyquran to find out the possible meaning of the roots and the verses in which they occur. I did say this in my last post. Do you mean that in the case of searching for women i should have also used the corpus method? In that case I had some familiarity with nisa and zawj and thus jumped straight onto studyquran to get the meaning of the roots. The english word search using global Quran was useful in picking out words translated to wife or husband in which the arabic was not zawj as it also had the arabic text available to compare with the english translation. From this i found a root meaning husband that did not belong to zawj. I do not know of any other way i could have achieved this. If there is, please let me know.

The reason I asked what I did was to highlight your methodology and reasoning, which I have found to be quite poor.

Could you be more specific with regards to my reasoning and also i know you mentioned the use of corpus with regards to method but if possible could you point out other issues with my method?

Understanding AQ is quite simple BUT it requires the reader to follow ITS method/thinking in order to determine what it is saying. This is the hard part making oneself conform to it rather than making it conform to you. This is the struggle we all face. Until you conquer yourself you will struggle to conquer it. I simply cannot stress this enough.

Thank you for the reminder

Is zawj the exclusive word for spouse in AQ? (this is your underlying assumption it would seem)

No it is not. I have come across a different word for husband which i found interesting as it could have implied zawj to not necessarily mean spouse but rather it could have literally just mean a pair in which this would have also been applicable to girlfriends and finaces but i did not find another word for wife as i did for husband.

What is the Arabic word for "sex"? What are the variations, if any?

I remember coming across more than one root which conveyed the meaning of sex. Is that what you mean by variations?

Is your statement of "sex with nisa" the same as AQ saying "sex with YOUR nisa"?

No it's not. Godwilling I'l be more specific next time. That does make a noticable difference

You mention 2223 and dismiss it, but if you had studied only a few verses further you would have found some evidence.

In the other thread, Sarah said the same thing with regards to another verse. What you are considering evidence here with the verses that come later on, i do not. 2223 uses women as opposed to zawj implying that other classes of women are included. Now i'm guessing you take the verses that come a little later on should apply to 2223. But why and how? I can see how this should be done with use of nisa in verse 2226 as divorce is used in which it is directly alway related to spouse. But in the case of 2223 There is no link unless we force one.

Look at these verses
2237 And if you divorce them before having sexual intercourse with them, but you have already set the dowry for them; then you must give half of what you have agreed, unless they forgive or the guardian over the marriage contract forgives. And if you forgive, it is closer to righteousness. And do not forget the favor between you; God is Seer of what you do.
2238 Maintain the contact prayers; and the middle contact prayer; and stand for God dutifully.
2239 But if you are in a state of fear, then you may do so while walking or riding. If you become secure, then remember God as He has taught you what you did not know.
2240 And for those of you whose lives are terminated and they leave widows behind; a testimony to them that they may enjoy for one year without being made to vacate. If they leave then there is no sin upon you for what they do with themselves of goodness; and God is Noble, Wise.
2241 And for those divorced to have a recompense is an obligation upon the righteous.

Salat verses are sandwhiched in between divorce verses. If we look before and after, the verses are talking of marital issues. Should 2238-239 be somehow forced into relation with marital issues? If so why?

For an article on study method, I recommend
http//www.quran434.com/study-method.html

Thanks. I'l look at this before i do more Quranic studying.

nimnimak_11

Peace,

Long time I posted here...

Sex before marriage well we can do as we please but the only one we fool is ourselves anyway.

I am very openminded as everyone knows ) Sex is a very private issue and during this awaken time we are living there are loads of information
to both gain from and misleading too as well.

Everyone has to find his own understanding and that goes for all issues.

Quran is a reminder and very deep scripture and it's purpose is the best for mankind. So if you still think that God, Allah, Jehova etc is going to put you in hell because you have sinned and have sex before marriage then you haven't really yet leveled up to what Quran and Islam is about.

When we do something that is not good for us we will create a bad condition and this if repeated can be like a living hell for us. same goes for good things
and then instead you create a paradise for yourself already here on earth. All good things we collect will be brought back to us in so much power. More good you do more good you will gain and more bad you do more bad you will feel.

The best thing is to keep to one partner and search for your soulmate that is the ideal way. Sex is desire and you can feed it in many ways not necessary to have sexual intercourse with someone. Touch yourself is a good solution for both gender, and it's clean and safe too.

Peace

Maria

Peace Sweden Majidah

I do agree that sex is private and so is the exposure of private parts. But that is why 235-6 limits this exposure or unguarding to our Zawjs and MMAs (ma malekat aymunkum) Other verses do seem to imply that sex is for marriage meaning that sex is not permissible or advisable with our MMAs. However nothing else is restricted so long as it does not count as lewdness. That is what i am currently trying to get across. Though I'm not sure on what an MMA is, i strongly think that it also entails girlfriends and finaces.

I agree with your ideal way.
The touch your self solution rotfl could have some issues for us males but not too serious. The issue isn't controling the desire to have sex, rather it is the desire to carry out what i see with my heart and reason as acceptable and good. In addition to this, it is also not to prohibit something which God may have made lawful.

With regards to the touch your self solution I do feel that 2430 implies that it is better for us....not to touch ourselves. The word translated as guard also means preserve, prevent a thing from perishing. I do think that it may be related to...touching one self but my assertion is quiet farfetched so i'm not sure.

unknownuser

The touch yourself solution laugh. If something of yours is in your right hand which also belongs to you...

Now, I ask a question.

Q1 If you fornicate openly/indiscriminately, are you harming anyone?
A YES! See world in general

Q2 If you fornicate behind closed doors, are you harming anyone?
A Your own souls (refer to quran); Also fornication between closed doors results in world harm anyway

Q3 If you touch yourself, what harm does it do?

Now, how many people are required to commit an act of "zina"? Another thing, 241 states the entire surah is a CLEAR surah and it is self evident that it is so. 2430 and 2431 say the same thing but one to men and one to women (adding restrictions). Why would it do this?

What does "guarding the private parts" entail given that "guarding the private parts" is said to men and separately then said to women? The answer to Q3 most probably lies in this.

Wakas

Peace nimnimak_11,

You could use the English-Arabic index at the end of this book
http//www.studyquran.org/resources/Quran-Concordance.pdf

Or the specific part is here, you can even word search it
http//www.islam-and-muslims.com/English-Arabic-RootList.pdf

It's probably one of the best ways to find the Arabic word(s) for an English word, when starting with the English word. Quite handy!

With regards to reasoning, please reflect upon the points I brought up, not only here. Also, please note it is time-consuming and a little tiresome to go through a person's posts and highlight and correct their reasoning, pointing out logical fallacies etc.

Is that what you mean by variations?

Yes. It seems you concluded something without even knowing what to look for, hence I pointed it out.

2238-239 has been discussed many times, also by me. salat simply means bond, same here, i.e. guard the bonds, i.e. any bonds, including marriage vows, marital contract etc. al salat al wusta means the most excellent or balanced bond, which can only be one thing, our bond to God / His system / Quran etc.

But why and how? I can see how this should be done with use of nisa in verse 2226 as divorce is used in which it is directly alway related to spouse.

From www.Quran434.com

Previous context is sexual relations between a married couple
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, Clement.
For those who swear away* from their women, waiting four months, then if they go back/revert**, then God is Forgiving, Merciful.
And if they decided/resolved*** on the divorce, then God is Hearer, Knower.
And the divorced women shall wait 3 menstruation periods...
*root Alif-Lam-Waw, see Lane's Lexicon.
**Fa-Ya-Alif
***Ayn-Zay-Miim

In this situation the husband swears to be away sexually from the wife, up to a period of 4 months, after which, he must return to normal marital relations or divorce. In this example, swearing away is not some sort of routine thing, as it clearly implies the sequence can end in the husband divorcing his wife. And of course, we can reasonably assume if a couple are happy with each other sexual relations would be the norm. A maximum of 4 months is likely given as it protects the affected spouse from being in this unfavourable position for a long time with no resolution, e.g. see 581-4, 334, and similar to what is implied in 4129.
Thus, this example is similar to 434 because the husband would almost certainly discuss the situation with his wife first, then swear to be away from her sexually (i.e. abandon them in the bed). In 2226-227 the step after abandon them in bed is either reconcile or divorce, there is no mention of idriboo-hunna (traditionally translated as beat/strike-them). So, is this a different situation to the traditionally understood sequence in 434 or are we meant to assume beating is an option even though it is not mentioned? Well, the obvious difference is that in 434 the husband is fearing nushuz/uprising/disloyalty from his wife and does not want the marriage to end, but in this case, he is the one considering divorce and there is no hint of the wife being the source of negativity. So, the recommendation seems to be a general one if one partner is considering an end to the marriage, it is permissible to have a cooling-off period, limited in time. Afterwards, they must either reconcile or divorce/release (which would require authority involvement).

2226 says "your nisa" and it proves it means wives here. This is FACT.

I'l look at this before i do more Quranic studying.

Yes, good idea!

nimnimak_11

Peace Wakas

Or the specific part is here, you can even word search it
http//www.islam-and-muslims.com/English-Arabic-RootList.pdf

It's probably one of the best ways to find the Arabic word(s) for an English word, when starting with the English word. Quite handy!

That is a great tool. Saves time, and increases efficiency. It gave me 5 terms for wife! THANKS!

With regards to reasoning, please reflect upon the points I brought up, not only here. Also, please note it is time-consuming and a little tiresome to go through a person's posts and highlight and correct their reasoning, pointing out logical fallacies etc.

Wakas i feel you place too much emphasis on my past and pay little attention to my present efforts. I understand it will take time but i will try and shorten this for you by rounding up my reasoning on the issue of MMA in as short a way as possible. Please in a short summary, tell me what you see wrong with this reasoning or method

All things permitted unless prohibited in AQ.
Parts can only be exposed to zawj and MMA and spouses (for the sake of other arabic words that entail the meaning of spouse)
MMA means whom you maintain by your oaths (which could entail many things)
In the case of a monogamous relationship, you maintain you partner by your oath and same with the other party.
Certain AQ verses imply sex is exclusive to marriage.
All things permitted with partner except sex and except any act that may count as fahisha (lewdness)

2238-239 has been discussed many times, also by me. salat simply means bond, same here, i.e. guard the bonds, i.e. any bonds, including marriage vows, marital contract etc. al salat al wusta means the most excellent or balanced bond, which can only be one thing, our bond to God / His system / Quran etc.

Ok but that did not address my argument. I used the verses as an argument against thinking that 2223 can be related in such a way that we apply the status of spouse to word nisa used in the verse. What you've quoted implies that the proceeding context should act in such a way that we take the use of nisa in 2223 to be exclusive to spouse and not entail any other meaning based on the use of your prior to nisa. This could mean your nisa who is of the MMA class for example. Why do we have to force a relation between 2223-225 with 2226 and certain verses that follow after it. Did we have to force a relation in the case of the verses on salat that were sandwiched between verses regarding marital issues? In doing so we would be working with assumptions IMO.

2226 says "your nisa" and it proves it means wives here. This is FACT.

What evidence do we have of assuming that when the word your occures prior to nisa, nisa should be understood to mean spouse? In the case of 2226, i have already agreed that nisa would mean wife based on the occurence of divorce in 2227 and it is clear that 2227 is a continuation of 2226.

Wakas

Peace nimnimak_11,

I cannot comment on your list, sorry. I prefer not to do your homework for you. All the tools are out there, along with the methodology.

What evidence do we have of assuming that when the word your occures prior to nisa, nisa should be understood to mean spouse?

YOU are the one studying it, and YOU are the one concluding stuff, so YOU tell us. My point was YOU never even considered it, amongst other things, so YOUR conclusions were at best poor, and at worst useless.

nimnimak_11

Peace Wakas

I cannot comment on your list, sorry. I prefer not to do your homework for you. All the tools are out there, along with the methodology
.
That was not what I sought. I sought reasonable backing to your claims of my poor reasoning. I mean if you criticise someone, surely you have reasons for it (unless it's just prejudice or something) Just state your reasons not verses and please, give up with the notion that i am wanting you to do my homework as I do not.

YOU are the one studying it, and YOU are the one concluding stuff, so YOU tell us. My point was YOU never even considered it, amongst other things, so YOUR conclusions were at best poor, and at worst useless.

That's what I have been doing. I've been concluding alot and saying alot of stuff, looking at a lot of stuff and there have been replys to that stuff and discussions on that stuff and it still continues.
If i get this line correctlly you think that because i never considered somethings such as the yourin 2226 my whole reasoning and method on this topic were at best poor and at worst useless. Wakas you do you even know what i've failed to consider or are you just saying this?.

In some of these replys, you have reponded in an unclear or unrelated way. Please clarify.

W said
What is the Arabic word for "sex"? What are the variations, if any?

N said
I remember coming across more than one root which conveyed the meaning of sex. Is that what you mean by variations?

W said
Yes. It seems you concluded something without even knowing what to look for, hence I pointed it out.

What exactly did i conclude without even knowing what to look for?

Also

W said
You mention 2223 and dismiss it, but if you had studied only a few verses further you would have found some evidence.

N said
In the other thread, Sarah said the same thing with regards to another verse. What you are considering evidence here with the verses that come later on, i do not. 2223 uses women as opposed to zawj implying that other classes of women are included. Now i'm guessing you take the verses that come a little later on should apply to 2223. But why and how? I can see how this should be done with use of nisa in verse 2226 as divorce is used in which it is directly alway related to spouse. But in the case of 2223 There is no link unless we force one.

Look at these verses
2237 And if you divorce them before having sexual intercourse with them, but you have already set the dowry for them; then you must give half of what you have agreed, unless they forgive or the guardian over the marriage contract forgives. And if you forgive, it is closer to righteousness. And do not forget the favor between you; God is Seer of what you do.
2238 Maintain the contact prayers; and the middle contact prayer; and stand for God dutifully.
2239 But if you are in a state of fear, then you may do so while walking or riding. If you become secure, then remember God as He has taught you what you did not know.
2240 And for those of you whose lives are terminated and they leave widows behind; a testimony to them that they may enjoy for one year without being made to vacate. If they leave then there is no sin upon you for what they do with themselves of goodness; and God is Noble, Wise.
2241 And for those divorced to have a recompense is an obligation upon the righteous.

Salat verses are sandwhiched in between divorce verses. If we look before and after, the verses are talking of marital issues. Should 2238-239 be somehow forced into relation with marital issues? If so why?

W said
2238-239 has been discussed many times, also by me. salat simply means bond, same here, i.e. guard the bonds, i.e. any bonds, including marriage vows, marital contract etc. al salat al wusta means the most excellent or balanced bond, which can only be one thing, our bond to God / His system / Quran etc.

How does this relate to my argument? when I said that they are sandwiched in between the context of marriage despite being irrelevant. Also you made the claim that i dismissed but i have not. I've clearly talked about both 2223 and 2226 but you have dismissed.

Continuing on from that same exchange

W
said 2226 says "your nisa" and it proves it means wives here. This is FACT.

I had already said that i saw the nisa in 2226 to mean wife but was arguing about the nisa in 2223 because you said i had dismissed it without looking at context. After my replys, you go back to 2226 despite the fact that I was in agreement with you on this, so why did you argue like I did otherwise and more importantly why did you avoid 2223 and with respect to my sandwich argument, what kind of a response was that. Which part of my reply to you did it address?!

and then finally when i say
What evidence do we have of assuming that when the word your occures prior to nisa, nisa should be understood to mean spouse? In the case of 2226, i have already agreed that nisa would mean wife based on the occurence of divorce in 2227 and it is clear that 2227 is a continuation of 2226.

You reply YOU are the one studying it, and YOU are the one concluding stuff, so YOU tell us. My point was YOU never even considered it, amongst other things, so YOUR conclusions were at best poor, and at worst useless.

Yes, and i was trying to show you the problem with your responses with the question. Not as a means of you doing my homework. I think your abillity to discuss fairly and reasonablly (at leas with me) are poor and unfair. The reasons are in your replys to my posts.

Wakas

peace nimnimak_11,

Let me be brief

By pointing out what you did not consider, your assumptions or errors etc, I am providing reasons for my view of you showing poor methodology/reasoning. Simple.

Wakas you do you even know what i've failed to consider or are you just saying this?.

Yes, I pointed out some.

What exactly did i conclude without even knowing what to look for?

The initial post I responded to did have conclusions. I recommend re-reading your own post.

when I said that they are sandwiched in between the context of marriage despite being irrelevant.

YOU may think they are irrelevant, I do not, hence my mention and clarification of them.

It is a fact you did not consider the relevance of "YOUR nisa" if any. You didn't consider many points, hence any conclusions you drew were at best poor, and at worst useless. If you disagree, that's fine.

Alen

The best thing is to keep to one partner and search for your soulmate that is the ideal way. Sex is desire and you can feed it in many ways not necessary to have sexual intercourse with someone. Touch yourself is a good solution for both gender, and it's clean and safe too.
Peace
Maria

Peace,
Respect.

I believe that the best way would be to rather wait until marriage happens and if the need to feel orgasm and have ejaculation arises, well, then, Houston, by all means, we are ready for take off.

Fornication is obviously worse then masturbation and if i had to choose between the two, i'd go with the latter.

425 The heavens would nearly shatter from above them, and the angels praise the glory of their Lord, and they ask forgiveness for those on the earth. Surely, God is the Forgiver, the Merciful.

4225 And He is the One who accepts the repentance from His servants, and He forgives the sins. He is fully aware of what you do.

4230 And any misfortune that happens to you is a consequence of what your hands have earned. And He overlooks much.

4234 Or He may drown them, for what they have earned. And He overlooks much.

God bless you.
Peace.

Leyna

I believe that the best way would be to rather wait until marriage happens and if the need to feel orgasm and have ejaculation arises, well, then, Houston, by all means, we are ready for take off.

But sex isn't only about having an orgasm. It's also about closeness, cuddling, the pleasure of touching someone's skin and hair etc. pp. Humans are tactile beings, the need for that is innate. Babies who are not touched and cuddled at all, actually die!

Anyone else, I haven't been ignoring your posts. I just had a proper read of the previous page today and will reply when I have a bit more time and energy, insha'allah.

peace

Alen

But sex isn't only about having an orgasm. It's also about closeness, cuddling, the pleasure of touching someone's skin and hair etc. pp. Humans are tactile beings, the need for that is innate. Babies who are not touched and cuddled at all, actually die!
peace

Peace,
Respect.

I agree, i totally agree here and i feel the same, humans were created to be with other humans. Man was created to be with a woman and vice-versa, Thank God.
I'm 32 years old, unmarried but i could and would never commit fornication. I feel that fornication is a form of supporting and keeping sex-slavery alive and well, unfortunetelly.

Therefore, one can touch him/herself as much as one wants or at least feels the need. There are limits .... and time ....

May God give us more strength and even more patience.
God bless you all.
Peace.

nimnimak_11

Peace Wakas

By pointing out what you did not consider, your assumptions or errors etc, I am providing reasons for my view of you showing poor methodology/reasoning

From the small list you gave (which had assumptions) i replied to you and only one of those assumptions held. Despite this, you continued to say that my reasoning and methodology was poor without pointing out anything else. This was your list

Is zawj the exclusive word for spouse in AQ? (this is your underlying assumption it would seem)
What is the Arabic word for "sex"? What are the variations, if any?
Is your statement of "sex with nisa" the same as AQ saying "sex with YOUR nisa"?
You mention 2223 and dismiss it, but if you had studied only a few verses further you would have found some evidence.

The one highlighted in bold is the only one that stands. The rest of them your wrong on your assumptions and here is why

Firstly NO WAY did i view zawj as the exclusive word for spouse in AQ. In the other, thread i posted this before we had this conversation. My mistake was what I wrote in this thread and I understand that that led you to assume that my assumption was so. BUT When I clarify this for you, why do you persist in saying that this is something i have failed to consider?!

Secondly, I was aware of the use of different words for sex. DESPITE SAYING THAT, you again persisted and insisted with the reply

Yes. It seems you concluded something without even knowing what to look for, hence I pointed it out.

This is just wrong UNLESS you meant to write it seemed rather than it seems which would then imply that you have changed your mind on that one issue but then should you not have clarified this?

Finally, i didn't just dismiss 2223. It was discussed before and i even tried to discuss it with you as you pointed out but I can't believe this is how you ended that short talk. Here's what you said
2226 says "your nisa" and it proves it means wives here. This is FACT.

Were we not discussing 2223 and had I not already agreed that the nisa in 2226 meant wife?

Almost all (if not all) faults i have pointed with your replys to me you've either ignored or given an irrelevant and vague answer.

You gave a list (in which in it were your assumptions of things that i had failed to consider) I argued that you were wrong on all these assumptions but one. Despite this, the last line of your last reply was
You didn't consider many points, hence any conclusions you drew were at best poor, and at worst useless. If you disagree, that's fine.
If one is many, then giveup

You say many, within reason point them out. Surely it should not take much of your time considering that it is already something you are aware of right?

I can use the other thread as proof to back up my points rather than just plainly say i had considered.