sex before marriage
-
peace nimnimak_11,
From the small list you gave (which had assumptions) i replied to you and only one of those assumptions held.
One in your mind, perhaps.
It seems I will have to be even more blunt. Let us refer back to my list again
Is zawj the exclusive word for spouse in AQ? (this is your underlying assumption it would seem)
To which you admitted "no its not", ergo, any conclusion based only on zawj will not be solid, thus not prove anything.
You also admitted "i did not find another word for wife as i did for husband." then later admitted (after using the tool I referenced) "It gave me 5 terms for wife!". Clearly implying you did not research/consider these, thus any conclusion you could have come up would be incomplete, thus not prove anything.
You also stated "it could have implied zawj to not necessarily mean spouse but rather it could have literally just mean a pair". Thus if you admit zawj may simply mean "pair" then how can you possibly conclude anything from zawj with regard to sex between spouses only. Shows poor research and reasoning. Further, you even use zawj incorrectly when you said
2431 gives those whom we can relax our dress code in front of in which zawj and MMA are included as well as mothers, farthers and so on. But MMA and zawj have a higher degree in what we expose or can do in terms of physcial.
zawj is not even in 2431. This example is one of several examples that show your careless/poor research.
What is the Arabic word for "sex"? What are the variations, if any?
To which you replied I remember coming across more than one root which conveyed the meaning of sex.
Well why dont you tell us what they are and if you actually bothered to study these words and occurrences? You showed no evidence you did, and I am confident you did not.
Is your statement of "sex with nisa" the same as AQ saying "sex with YOUR nisa"?
You admitted "That does make a noticable difference" and said this point of mine "held". I showed the use of "their/your nisa" was proven to mean wife. You then implied that may be true for that occurrence, not the other one. The obvious question is what is your criteria/reasoning and did you even bother to check these "your/their nisa" occurrences? I am confident you did not.
when I said that they are sandwiched in between the context of marriage despite being irrelevant.
You took them or concluded them as irrelevant, but as I said, only irrelevant in your mind, not mine. You provide no evidence, simply your own claim, circular logic i think they they irrelevant, ergo, they are irrelevant.
Showing poor reasoning.When I asked a simple question http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599777.msg251012#msg251012
You backtracked and seemingly changed your mind. It was the most basic of questions I asked.Please note, I have NOT even read most of your posts on this topic, thus there are likely more problems.
Poor method, poor research, poor reasoning, errors. Simple.
To summarise, your methodology and reasoning has shown to be poor, this I know. The only debatable point may be "to what degree". Hence why I have not read most of your posts on this topic.
-
Peace Wakas
It seems I will have to be even more blunt. Let us refer back to my list again
Actually i found the increase of clarity and reasoning given in this post in comparison to that of the past to reduce the bluntness. Thanks.
To which you admitted "no its not", ergo, any conclusion based only on zawj will not be solid, thus not prove anything.
I did not base conclusions on zawj alone (though most is zawj focused) somewhere in the other thread, i wrote a post about the possibility of zawj not exclusively being spouse which shows that my underlying assumptions is not what you have suggested it to be. However i have made the mistake of using zawj in place of spouse most of the times in my posts and that is because i see zawj as the most frequent term for spouse. I'l hopefully be more careful next time. Does this clarify?
You also admitted "i did not find another word for wife as i did for husband." then later admitted (after using the tool I referenced) "It gave me 5 terms for wife!". Clearly implying you did not research/consider these, thus any conclusion you could have come up would be incomplete, thus not prove anything.
No Wakas, I said I did not come across other terms for wives, this does not mean i did not consider the possibility nor does it mean that i did not try to research these. I DID BOTH during the course of the other thread however I was unaware of this handy tool you gave. Had i have had it, you can be sure I would have used it. That's why the first thing i did after obtaining it was going after to see if there actually is another term for wife and was pleasently surprised to find 5.
You also stated "it could have implied zawj to not necessarily mean spouse but rather it could have literally just mean a pair". Thus if you admit zawj may simply mean "pair" then how can you possibly conclude anything from zawj with regard to sex between spouses only. Shows poor research and reasoning.
No, I admitted that in the past when i came across another word for husband other than zawj, it triggered in my mind that there is a chance that zawj may just mean pair (which would entail other relations other than just marriage) thus i did not admit that zawj may simply mean a pair. Was the past tense not clear?
Here is what i wrote againNo 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.
zawj is not even in 2431. This example is one of several examples that show your careless/poor research.
That's harsh. I made a mistake in replacing spouse with zawj in the post as i was too used to it. This isn't an issue with my research it's an issue with something else is it not?
To which you replied I remember coming across more than one root which conveyed the meaning of sex.Well why dont you tell us what they are and if you actually bothered to study these words and occurrences? You showed no evidence you did, and I am confident you did not.
To tell you what they are would mean going to look for them again. It will prove nothing if I do. I can only provide my word. I actually bothered to study the roots of these words and their occurences before you suggested this and I did not post this on the other thread as I did not draw any conclusions for why this was the case. If i had drawn conclusions, such as the case with different variations for the the use of slave (which i used to show something) I would have posted it.
Your confidence in this case is a result of bias IMO. So still one point holds and not several as you suggest.You admitted "That does make a noticable difference" and said this point of mine "held". I showed the use of "their/your nisa" was proven to mean wife. You then implied that may be true for that occurrence, not the other one. The obvious question is what is your criteria/reasoning and did you even bother to check these "your/their nisa" occurrences? I am confident you did not.
I did not check for the phrase "their/your nisa" as it never came to my mind. In this case you were right which is why I said this point held.
You took them or concluded them as irrelevant, but as I said, only irrelevant in your mind, not mine. You provide no evidence, simply your own claim, circular logic i think they they irrelevant, ergo, they are irrelevant.
Showing poor reasoning.I did. I said salat al wustu has nothing to do with marital issues. Is it not self explanatory? If i say a fish is unrelated to a camel, is that not self explantory? Or is it such that because i reason this way my claim is circular?!
The post you made to me looked like that they were irrelevant. This is what you wrote
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.
So if your thinking this bond, is about our bond to God/His system/Quran how is this rightly relevant to the extent that it needs to be sandwiched between verses on marriage?
When I asked a simple question http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599777.msg251012#msg251012
You backtracked and seemingly changed your mind. It was the most basic of questions I asked.Here I made a mistake in terms of logic. That's 2.
Please note, I have NOT even read most of your posts on this topic, thus there are likely more problems.
That is what was so strongly on my mind. Now it's certain. Which is what I find most disappointing. How can one come, throw such criticism without having read the posts of that person on the topic that they are criticising for.
Poor method, poor research, poor reasoning, errors. Simple.
errors I agree with.
I'm still curios. You said MANY but pointed out about 5. 3 of which i gave you an answer to. I have this assumption that your use of the word many was the result of preconcieved notions. Am I right? If not then why use it?
Also can you please clarify the issue with the salat al wustu with regards to what i have pointed out in this post.
-
peace
Thanks for admitting
you have used zawj incorrectly at times.
"most is zawj focussed" when we know this word may be irrelevant, ergo, most is focussed on a potentially irrelevant term.I was unaware of this handy tool you gave. Had i have had it, you can be sure I would have used it.
Really? That's not what you said here
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599939.0Yes, I guess we will have to take your word for it on the variations on sex research point. If you did research it, I think this info would have been handy to add to the discussion table, as you may not have realised something others might have etc.
Here is what you said
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?
If you had only mentioned "salat al wusta" then perhaps I wouldn't have commented, but you said "salat verses" and you made bold more than just "salat al wusta". This is FACT. Anyone can read what you wrote.
Feel free to read past forum discussion on this term, i.e. actually do research before concluding "irrelevance".Each to their own.
-
Peace Wakas
"most is zawj focussed" when we know this word may be irrelevant, ergo, most is focussed on a potentially irrelevant term.
You've quoted me saying most is zawj focused. By this I meant most verses regarding spouse are zawj and so most of things looked at are zawj related when it comes to spouse. Surely this is completely different to the method in which you have argued that "most is focused on a potentially irrelevant term"
Also if by some chance you think zawj is irrelevant, let me know so i can quote some relevant verses that convey otherwise. But I strongly doubt you are in need of this.
Really? That's not what you said here
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599939.0Look back. I thanked you for what was there. That's how i came across corpus. I did not use the other ones as i considered corpus the easiest. Had i had known that at the very end of that pdf file, there was such a tool, then once again i repeat, i would have used it. It would have saved me much time.
Yes, I guess we will have to take your word for it on the variations on sex research point. If you did research it, I think this info would have been handy to add to the discussion table, as you may not have realised something others might have etc.
True.
If you had only mentioned "salat al wusta" then perhaps I wouldn't have commented, but you said "salat verses" and you made bold more than just "salat al wusta". This is FACT. Anyone can read what you wrote.
Feel free to read past forum discussion on this term, i.e. actually do research before concluding "irrelevance".This is really disappointing. When I wrote
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?
Was it not obvious enough? Did you not manage to figure out that what i was saying was that 2238-239 are irrelevant with regards to the verses that come before and after it? Or did you choose not to pay attention to this?
There are some questions I asked of you which i would appreciate if you would reply to
I did not base conclusions on zawj alone (though most is zawj focused) somewhere in the other thread, i wrote a post about the possibility of zawj not exclusively being spouse which shows that my underlying assumptions is not what you have suggested it to be. However i have made the mistake of using zawj in place of spouse most of the times in my posts and that is because i see zawj as the most frequent term for spouse. I'l hopefully be more careful next time. Does this clarify?
That's harsh. I made a mistake in replacing spouse with zawj in the post as i was too used to it. This isn't an issue with my research it's an issue with something else is it not?
So if your thinking this bond, is about our bond to God/His system/Quran how is this rightly relevant to the extent that it needs to be sandwiched between verses on marriage?
and most importantly
You said MANY but pointed out about 5. 3 of which i gave you an answer to. I have this assumption that your use of the word many was the result of preconcieved notions. Am I right? If not then why use it?
Peace
-
peace,
I did not use the other ones as i considered corpus the easiest.
For those who prefer the easiest option, thorough study is often the harder option. Now that you are aware of it, we will all see how the "quality" of your study improves.
No, you were not clear on 2238-239. I understood what you said perfectly, however it now appears you meant something more specific. It is not my fault you worded it poorly. If you dont believe me, ask anyone else on the forum. As I said, use the search function, e.g.
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9614.msg40052#msg40052
The context prior to 2238 discusses formal/public orations/vows/bonds. The core meaning of these orations/vows, as implied by the root, are to go/turn towards in a close/positive manner. This view is given further weight by the use of "QaNiTeena/obedience" at the end of the ayat/sign. And the reference of "the most balanced oration/bond" (i.e. al/the quran/reading) provides a perfect link for 2239.
In other words, the advice appears to be when guarding one's bonds, guard the most balanced/excellent bond (and that is to God), and if one does this, all other bonds will be straight/correct.
If you think this is irrelevance, that's up to you. AQ does not, hence it mentions it.
I repeat, in my evidenced opinion, your study method and reasoning has been poor. If you disagree, that's fine. Anyone can review what you and I have said and make up their own minds. When I actually see you using sound method/reasoning, then I will read your posts on this subject. As I recommended to you very early on http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599518.msg236574#msg236574
No more comment from me on this issue until then.
-
peace Wakas
For those who prefer the easiest option, thorough study is often the harder option. Now that you are aware of it, we will all see how the "quality" of your study improves.
Wow. So basically if for exmaple I choose to use a calculator to do large sums rather then do it in my head this would mean that thorough study is often the harder option for me? You've got to be kidding! Don't you see something wrong with this reasoning?
I chose corpus as it was the easiest. I put in the verse number and it gives me what i look for. Namely the word for word of the verse in english and arabic helping me pick out the arabic word and root of that word.
No, you were not clear on 2238-239. I understood what you said perfectly, however it now appears you meant something more specific. It is not my fault you worded it poorly. If you dont believe me, ask anyone else on the forum. As I said, use the search function, e.g.
How is me saying 2238-239 are irrelevant to the verses before and after it not clear enought? How can i be clearer?
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9614.msg40052#msg40052
In other words, the advice appears to be when guarding one's bonds, guard the most balanced/excellent bond (and that is to God), and if one does this, all other bonds will be straight/correct.If you think this is irrelevance, that's up to you. AQ does not, hence it mentions it.
You've not given a direct answer yet. Salat can be related to all matters. That is not what i meant. What i was asking was do you think 2238-239 are directly related or not?
I repeat, in my evidenced opinion, your study method and reasoning has been poor. If you disagree, that's fine. Anyone can review what you and I have said and make up their own minds. When I actually see you using sound method/reasoning, then I will read your posts on this subject. As I recommended to you very early on http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599518.msg236574#msg236574
No more comment from me on this issue until then.
Evidenced? From someone who claims "Please note, I have NOT even read most of your posts on this topic, thus there are likely more problems." what they consider as evidence or more importantly how they interpret any evidence is questionable IMO. It's not surprising to see you not answer my question
You said MANY but pointed out about 5. 3 of which i gave you an answer to. I have this assumption that your use of the word many was the result of preconcieved notions. Am I right? If not then why use it?
Indeed anyone can review our discussion and make up their own minds.
Peace
-
Houston,and Alen
YOU HAVE TO WAIT be strong and with salaah you be abel to control your self becouse salaah prevents evil and vice.
You don't need masturbation and obviasly fornication is not
wors than masturbation .
In both there is sin for the angels shy and the jinns rejoys.
I would say looking at porn magazien is beter than mastubation or fornication BUT there again you are pleasing your nufs like in other acts.So it's beter to look at a pussy than to being a wangker or sex slave.
What do you guys say.??? -
Houston,and Alen
YOU HAVE TO WAIT be strong and with salaah you be abel to control your self becouse salaah prevents evil and vice.
You don't need masturbation and obviasly fornication is not
wors than masturbation .
In both there is sin for the angels shy and the jinns rejoys.
I would say looking at porn magazien is beter than mastubation or fornication BUT there again you are pleasing your nufs like in other acts.So it's beter to look at a pussy than to being a wangker or sex slave.
What do you guys say.???I say you should have posted in your real ID Jamaal.
So you are saying its better to look at porn mags, which gets you even more heated, then what? How does looking at something you cant have but gets you all hot then you cant do anything about it help? How can fornication NOT be worse than masturbation, thats nonsense. Would your angels and jinns be happier watching you fornicate with someone else rather than just go and relieve yourself, job done and back to normal?Stop looking at porn mags and start looking at what God really said.
-
Houston,and Alen
YOU HAVE TO WAIT be strong and with salaah you be abel to control your self becouse salaah prevents evil and vice.
You don't need masturbation and obviasly fornication is not
wors than masturbation .
In both there is sin for the angels shy and the jinns rejoys.
I would say looking at porn magazien is beter than mastubation or fornication BUT there again you are pleasing your nufs like in other acts.So it's beter to look at a pussy than to being a wangker or sex slave.
What do you guys say.???What do you make of
2430 Tell the believing men to lower their gaze and keep covered their private parts, for that is better for them. God is fully aware of what you do.
Also I've heard that there are some issues with masturbation not in terms of AQ but in terms of health and well being.
-
It does NOT make you blind, deaf, or have any health or well being issues at all.
Not exactly. Although i can't say for sure. I've more often heard now on the internet that there is a profound nootropic/energetic effect that kicks in somewhere around day 14 (of not masturbating) I saw this discussed in various threads and personally from experience I really believe this.
Which is why i'd suggest the males have a go at abstaining for two weeks. That's the best way to verify this for themselves. Or search the internet but do so in detail. Check specifically for the effects of abstaining from masturbation.
