What characteristics do MMA have as a category that are provided in the quran and work with those.
1)That's what i've tried to do. 4:24-25 implies a class that has characteristics important prior to marriage that is relevant and important to marriage. Best of these are fiance/girlfriends. Can there be any other options at 4:24-25?
Above. If 23:5-6 is the verse being used for sex, that is the verse that should be discussed. Marriage with MMA's has nothing to do with sex before it. Regardless of what meaning you take for these words, the verse 23:5-6 and other verses are NOT telling you about a sexual subset within MMA. It just is MMA. One can be within their right to say non sexual category, and if sexual category, it opens up to all and people decide what's cool using fahisha as they see fit.
2) 23:5-6 is being discussed in conjunction with other verses 4:24-25, fahisha, zina and 2:222-240. If 23:5-6 was to be discussed alone without the rest of the Quran, conclusion would be, one can ungaurd their private parts to their zawj and anyone whom their oaths possess. I agree it is just MMA meaning all MMA unless we find implications of restrictions elsewhere but this means sex with anyone whom your oaths possess unless there are restrictions elsewhere. No it does not open to all people because fahisha is a restriction and a sufficiently solid one IMO. Do you not agree that fahisha is a restriction? Do you think that there is one set meaning for it other than lewdness?
This is assuming that sex with girlfriends and fiancee's is permissible. First we deal with that.
3) This is dealt with by there not being restrictions on having sex with fiances and girlfriends
. Everything is permitted unless there are restrictions. Sexual activity requires the unguarding of one's private parts and this activity is restricted to only the zawj or the MMA. So long as girlfriends and fiances fall under the MMA category, then they sex is permitted with them. To assume that sex with fiances and girlfriends is impermissible, one must convey that the MMA at 23:5-6 does not encompass fiances and girlfriends or that if they do, there are restrictions such as 2:237 that add to the restriction of unguarding one's private parts. So far you have suggested 4:34. 2:237, 24:58, 24:31 and 4:23-24 along with the concepts of fahisha and zina as retrictions. I've replied to all of them and AFAIK have not recieved your comments on my replies to you with regards to them.
Thus either you have agreed to disagree about them, did not see my replies, or agree with me or have just left it for more important points to discuss. Either way I have replied to you on all that you have argued in favour of the exclusivity of sex to marriage.
Above. What nature of oaths are sexual? There is no sexual nature of oaths...it's either an agreement to etc etc or not.
4) Sex is not incumbent upon anyone or any role. They can have mutual asexual relationships inclusive of marriage and still retain their title. These 'oaths encompassing sexual activity' you speak of...what are they then?
With one's wife, fiance or girlfriend there are oaths in place that encompass sexual activity. Some may choose not to engage in sex despite the nature of their oaths allowing sexual activity. Or it may be that they have agreed that their relation is such that it does not encompass sexual activity thus different oaths are in place between them.
Once again like before you aren't getting the point that some would consider marrying first cousins fahisha.
If they do then they shouldn't marry their first cousins. If they choose to impose this on others, they need to justify this. There are cases where marrying one's first cousin can arguably be a fahisha. For example, a blood test of both the first cousins is taken and the results strongly suggest that should the married female first cousin come to be pregnant, her child would come out with defects. You could say that in this case, marrying a first cousin is not a fahisha. But should they marry and engage in sex that leads to children, then IMO this is a fahisha. If they engage in sex that does not lead to kids, then IMO this is not fahisha.
we don't have a restriction on eating human flesh.
We are told not to transgress. This determines much with regards to when if ever it is permissible to eat human flesh. From the Quran examples can be taken that aid our understanding of transgression.
I don't accept a willy nilly nature of fahisha. We can either discern what is or what it isn't from the quran, or we can't and it's entirely up to a person to lump whatever he wants into it for whatever reason. This is why, unless you can reason why it's fahisha from the quran and other than what's socially un/acceptable, using it as a subjective shield doesn't cut it.
Some cases of what is fahisha is clear. Some more controversial. But no way can you say narrow what fahisha is to examples in the Quran. This would cause much problems
There are clear links between fahisha and zina and there is nothing in the quran about it being exclusive to marriage.
What is your understanding of fahisha and zina from the quran?
I agree there are clear links. We are told not to come near zina for it is a fahisha.
Zina = adultery fahisha = lewdness.
It's YOU that has this understanding of the exact same thing as a marriage without the marriage. Live with them? Why not. Sex with them? Why not. Share wealth with them?
No I do not think marriage without the marriage. There is nothing restricting a couple from living together. Nothing restricting them from having sex together. There are implications that having kids together should be kept to marriage. Thus they should not do anything that leads to kids. Distinction between marriage and a couple living together you ask? Children, legal status, inheritance, further rights and acknowledgement and documentation of a long-term commitment.
What if they have a baby? Social services/adoption. Any punishment/legal recourse/maintenance/laws? Nah, it wasn't his fault and aren't any even if it is.
It was their fault. Recklessness. Punishment? not by the state IMO. If mother and father can't provide and look after the child appropriately and adequately, then social services takes over. That may be punishment enough or encouragement enough for the parents to strive to create suitable conditions for their child IMO.
Answered multiple times. If someone thinks we shouldn't touch them at all, then don't touch them at all. If someone thinks it's only sexual touches, then don't touch them sexually. What more do you want? Whether I choose a or b is irrelevant. Touches can only encompass sexual or non sexual.
What more do i want? I would like reasons for your understanding of what touch means. As in what lead you to your understanding of touch = .....
My view is sexual activities outside marriage is a fahisha <--- (4:15, 4:19, 4:25, 33:30, 65:1) --->
I've looked at all these verses. Where is there any
implications that sexual activity without a marriage certificate constitutes fahisha? I can't discuss your POV if don't understand what it's based on.
Open/clear fahisha is inclusive of sexual activities outside marriage that can receive a punishment and/or have witnesses/evidence, contrasted to hidden fahisha (7:33, 6:151).
Which part of 7:33, 6:151, 4:15, 4:19, 4:25, 33:30, 65:1 implies Open/clear fahisha is inclusive of sexual activities outside marriage? I was hoping you'd answer this: 23:5-6 implies unguarding of private parts to zawj or MMA. 4:24-25 clearly imply the MMA are fiances/girlfriends (if you disagree with MMA=girlfriend or fiance, please explain why) Does this not mean that one can unguard their private parts to their fiances/girlfriends?
and this:There are further implications of limitations with regards to both the zawj and the MMA and the unguarding of the private parts. The sort of unguarding and to whom of the MMA it is being unguarded must not constitute either fahisha or zina. Furthermore there can be no ungaurding of the private parts to the MMA in such a manner as to lead to pregnancies (2:237) How else could you add to these restrictions in such a manner as to make all sexual activity exclusive to marriage?