General Issues / Questions > Questions/Comments on the Quran
How sex before Marriage is not haram (prohibited) according to the Quran
Mazhar:
--- Quote from: nimnimak_11 on August 16, 2012, 04:25:11 PM ---Peace Mazhar
What becomes of:
23:5-6 and the unguarding of the private parts to the zawj or the Ma Maletkat aymunhum? Based on 24:31 we can establish that guarding is not a command. But we still need to account for the MMA.
I agree that the unguarding of the private parts does not = sexual activity. But can we deny that it encompasses sexual activity?
Does one not need to unguard their private parts in order to engage in sexual activity?
And this being the case, does this not mean that one can engage in sexual activity with Ma Malekat Aymunhum (whoever they may be)?
Those who have responded to this keep repeating that unguarding the private parts does not mean to have sex and I have already expressed my agreement with that.
But no one has addressed the fact that if one can unguard their private parts, then they can engage in sex. Just as one does not engage in sex, by guarding their private parts and since only two categories have been specified with regards to the unguarding of the private parts, then this implies sexual activity with them does it not?
Is there anything significant in the arabic that I may not be recognising?
--- End quote ---
Perhaps there is no denying that deliberate exposure of genitalia is either for sex or for sexual harrassment to other party. "Protectors-Guards"-Active Participles they deliberately protect their genitalia from exposure for sex or sexual harrassment or incitement for others.
The conjunction "Aau" in 23:5-6 is causing problem to you because of under-translation, perhaps by almost all translators.
Let me complete the article discussing all occurrences whereby, Allah the Exalted willing, this confusion might be over.
nimnimak_11:
--- Quote ---Perhaps there is no denying that deliberate exposure of genitalia is either for sex or for sexual harrassment to other party. "Protectors-Guards"-Active Participles they deliberately protect their genitalia from exposure for sex or sexual harrassment or incitement for others.
--- End quote ---
If it is to be narrowed down, I cannot think of it being narrowed down to anything other than sexual purposes.
--- Quote ---The conjunction "Aau" in 23:5-6 is causing problem to you because of under-translation, perhaps by almost all translators.
--- End quote ---
This has been pointed out. Muhammad Assad provided a suggestion but I see a strong problem with it:
At 23:5-6 it says x or y. If I understand Assad correctly, it is suggested that the Aau here is just clarifying the nature of what a zawj is.
Sort of like this: Your wives or those whom you are married to. Or like this: Give the letter to Batman or Bruce Wayne
The problem with this is that in the Quran, it makes a clear distinction between the zawj and the MMA at various verses. Furthermore, it makes a distinction between the zawj and the MMA even at verses that are with regards to marriage. It also does so with regards to inheritance. Thus IMO Assad's suggestion is unreasonable. We must take Aau as that which makes a distinction between two things and not as something that sort of clarifies. Here is why
Consider the following:
You are asked to deliver a letter to Batman or Bruce Wayne. Now if there was only one Batman, there would be no issue in the instruction given. But when there is more than one Batman and the letter is exclusively intended for Bruce Wayne, then the instruction you are given is wrong. Similarly with 23:5-6 either the instruction is wrong (this cannot be given the divinity of the scripture) or it must be the case that the Aau is making a distinction between the two at 23:5-6
Thus it cannot logically be the case that Aau is doing anything other than distinguishing the Zawj from the MMA. To say that it is not distinguishing creates logical contradictions as demonstrated above. To say that it is distinguishing, creates no contradictions but this will mean that sexual activity is not exclusive to marriage and many dislike the implication of the permissibility of sexual activity outside of marriage.
I hope we can all put aside our biases (me included) and get to the truth rather than delay or avoid it.
The next step IMO is to look at 24:33, 2:237 and the waiting periods to determine how much or what type of sexual activity (if any) is permitted/advised via those verses. I have discussed the concepts of musafihun with Noon and Wakas, and it ended with me providing my defence and them not responding to it. Having not heard anything back from them, I am thus assuming either agreement from them or they cannot logically refute my defence hence the silence or that they are not able to access the internet or free-minds. Zina has also been discussed with uq and he has not refuted my points but is currently investigating the root of zina.
This leaves 24:33, 2:237 and the waiting periods to discuss. They have been discussed but not as in much depth with others and I would like to hear the knowledge/opinions of others with regards to these verses (in particular yours) before doing any sort of summary or making decisions.
Mazhar:
--- Quote ---At 23:5-6 it says x or y. If I understand Assad correctly, it is suggested that the Aau here is just clarifying the nature of what a zawj is.
--- End quote ---
He seems to have ignored that the discourse is about human beings. And the relative pronoun refers to a woman. That was the reason that "Min" before Ma is not used to keep the point distinct that it regards a woman not an object [otherwise all sexual toys would have become permissible for self satisfaction of sexual urges because they will fall in the category of possessions].
«أَوْ» is عاطفة and "Ma" is موصولية معطوفة على أزواجهم a Relative Pronoun linking back to أزواجهم.
nimnimak_11:
--- Quote from: Mazhar on August 17, 2012, 02:03:16 PM ---
He seems to have ignored that the discourse is about human beings. And the relative pronoun refers to a woman. That was the reason that "Min" before Ma is not used to keep the point distinct that it regards a woman not an object [otherwise all sexual toys would have become permissible for self satisfaction of sexual urges because they will fall in the category of possessions].
«أَوْ» is عاطفة and "Ma" is موصولية معطوفة على أزواجهم a Relative Pronoun linking back to أزواجهم.
--- End quote ---
Could you please further clarify for me? In particular the part in red? What implications can be drawn?
Mazhar:
--- Quote from: nimnimak_11 on August 18, 2012, 03:25:21 AM ---Could you please further clarify for me? In particular the part in red? What implications can be drawn?
--- End quote ---
It seems you did not see what I had started
The verbal sentence can independently mean possession of a toy, an object, two objects, plural objects, a woman, two women, more women, a man, two men or more men.
مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ
That which your right hands possessed-that upon which you gained the proprietorship.
The Woman, upon whom, the right hands of you have the authority for ruling, ordering, or managing her affair.
The Man, upon whom, the right hands of you have the authority for ruling, ordering, or managing his affair.
مَا: It is found in Arabic text both as a Particle and a Noun. The Noun is found as [ما الموصولة] General Relative Pronoun, or an Indefinite Noun modified by an adjective. General Relative Pronoun means that Relative Noun which is used for the masculine and feminine, singular, dual, and plural. A Relative Pronoun is followed by a sentence which relates back to it, most often with a Pronoun named as [الْعَائِدُ] that links back to it. Here, in the above sentence, it is General Relative Pronoun as it is followed by a Relative Clause comprising a complete Verbal Sentence.
مَلَكَتْ It is a Perfect Transitive Verb; Third Person; Singular; Feminine with feminine marker; مصدرمُلْكٌ Verbal Noun. It denotes possession or ownership of an object with ability to have it to oneself exclusively. It signifies with regard to a person to have the authority for ruling, or ordering, of his or her affair, or case. The perception is the same in both cases whether inanimate object or a living being. The Verbal Sentence is the Linkage Clause [صلة الموصول] for the preceding General Relative Noun.
أَيْمَانُكُمْ This is a Possessive Phrase. The First Nominative Definite Feminine Broken Plural Noun is the Subject of Verb. The Suffixed Possessive Pronoun is for Second Person; plural; masculine, in genitive state. The Object of Verb is elided. The Object Pronoun [الْعَائِدُ] referring back to the Relative Pronoun is usually elided. However, if the Relative Pronoun is the Subject, the Pronoun in the linkage clause referring back to it is not elided.
The word أَيْمَانُ is the broken plural of يَمِينٌ. It is derived from Root "ى م ن". The basic perception infolded therein is of right hand and right side. It connotes "oath" which is normally and reflexively pledged by raising right hand, or striking right hand on the palm of another person. Notwithstanding that the same word refers to "the right hands" and "the oaths", it will cause no ambiguity in the text since both are different in essence. "Oath" is abstract noun while "right hand" is a concrete noun. The abstract is that which exists only in our minds, that which we cannot know through our senses. It includes qualities, relationships, conditions, ideas, theories, and states of being, fields of inquiry and the like. Concrete words refer to things we can touch, see, hear, smell, and taste. When used as the Subject of a transitive Verb like مَلَكَتْ there is absolutely no reason that someone be confused to take it as "oaths" instead of "right hands".
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version