How sex before Marriage is not haram (prohibited) according to the Quran

[nimnimak_11]

Peace all


This is an article i wrote. My first on a topic in Quran. If you read it, please let me know what you think:



The purpose of this article is to argue against the widely accepted belief that the Quran prohibits sex before marriage. I intend to do this by using the Quran to justify a case of pre-marital sex where it is acceptable in the light of the Quran.

Unless you take the root Zay-Nun-Ya or Fa-Ha-Shin to literally mean premarital sex, the prohibition of sex before marriage is not stated in the Quran. There are also no verses in the Quran where sex is made exclusive to marriages. Thus sex is not exclusive to marriages and can be done outside of wedlock.  The fact that sex is not explicitly prohibited does not mean that it is ok to have sex with anyone under any circumstance. The Quran places restrictions and limitations which prevent such a scenario. There are two limitations which I will point out:

The first limitation I will explain via the following Verses of 23:5-6

23:5 And they keep covered their private parts.
23:6 Except around their spouses (azwaaj), or those who are maintained by their oaths (ma malakat aymanukum), they are free from blame.
23:7 But whoever seeks anything beyond this, then these are the transgressors.

From these verses, it is clear that none should have access to the private parts except the following two categories: Spouses (Azwaaj) and those who are committed to you by oaths (ma malakat aymanukum) Thus SO FAR sex can only be done with those two categories of people. However this presents us with a problem as anyone could be committed to an individual by oath. Thus theoretically if an orphan is committed to you by oath.....then he can have access to your private parts.
This is where the second limitation comes in:

Fa-Ha-Shin which has the possible following meanings:
became excessive/immoderate/enormous/exorbitant/overmuch/beyond measure, foul/bad/evil/unseemly/indecency/abominable, lewd/gross/obscene, committing excess which is forbidden, transgress the bounds/limits, avaricious, adultery/fornication.

An example of the usage of Fa-Ha-Shin can be seen in 17:32 And do not come near adultery, for it is lewdness and an evil path.

If we take lewdness into account, then it becomes clear that showing your private parts to an orphan who is committed to you by oath is forbidden (unless you have a really good and un-lewd reason to do so which is very unlikely) Thus (though highly unlikely) no one can claim that they were showing their private parts to their orphan and then justify themselves with verses such as 23:5-6. Such an act will go strongly against reason and heart in which their justification becomes invalid just by that alone. Nevertheless for the purposes of this article, it is an act of lewdness indicated by reason and heart and thus prohibited by the Quran. Thus this takes out the possibility of all gross acts such as the example given.
I will now discuss some of the possible objections to my argument.

One possible objection to my argument, is the following verse: 24:33

And let those who are not able to marry continue to be chaste until God enriches them of His Bounty. And if those who are maintained by your oaths seek to consummate the marriage, then document it with them if you find that they are ready, and give them from the wealth of God which He has bestowed upon you. And do not force your young women to need if they have desired to be independent, in order that you may make a gain in the goods of this worldly life. And if anyone has compelled them, then for their compulsion, God is Forgiving, Merciful.

It requests of those who are unable to marry to remain chaste implying that they should not have sex until they have married. I disagree with this translation and understanding for the following reason:

If we look at a word by word translation, the word chaste actually isn’t there. What’s actually used is abstain. But his could mean to abstain from something different to sex such as abstaining from unlawful sex and not sex as a whole.

Another possible objection
It may be argued that the permission to expose the private parts to those you are committed to by oath given in the Quran does not include the permission to have sex. This is not the case as in order for something to be prohibited, it needs to be stated in the Quran. If it is not stated, then it is not prohibited and as sex is not prohibited beyond the limits already discussed, then it is permitted. Consider the following: If we are to say that the private parts (in the case of those who are committed to an individual by oath) are for exposure only and nothing more, then this becomes problematic. Imagine a surgeon attempting to operate on an individual’s private part. The surgeon can see the private part of the individual as the surgeon is committed to the individual by oath however the surgeon will not be able to go beyond seeing the private part (even though the individual has consented to operating on the private part) and thus be unable to a operate on the individual. This would be the case if we were to accept that the private parts can only be exposed and nothing more can be done to them. 

Moving on....
The concept of lewdness is subjective. What may appear lewd to an individual may appear normal to another. Consider a one night stand. Some will consider the act as lewd and some will think it acceptable. Topics such as a one night stand are controversial and open to debate. However when the act of sex is done between a couple who are both morally upright and are comfortable with each other and are not rushing one another and it does not go against their reason and heart prior to the act, then I see no controversy in such a case. I doubt that in such a case there is any lewdness. If anyone objects to this, please indicate the lewdness you pick out from this.

In conclusion, pre-marital sex is not prohibited in the Quran. There are clear limitations and subjective limitations. Issues such as a one night stand may possibly be justified in the light of the Quran. As outrageous as this claim may appear to some, I truly believe that it may hold some truth.

The end.

Some addiotional points:

In a discussion with a friend, when attempting to argue against one night stands, I could not get anywhere as his argument was clearly the more reasonable and stronger. I will present a revised summary of our discussion: What could be wrong with two healthy (no disabilities such as down-syndrome or any influence of alcohol) and responsible people agreeing to have sex on one night even though they have just met on the night? I responded by saying that that would make sex meaningless and without passion. But would it necessarily do this? I cannot tell. And even if it does, how could it be wrong when both have agreed to it and it’s not harming anyone else? (please note this was an argument with my friend which I have attempted to summarise. What I have written down isn’t exactly what was said but rather the key points pointed out and discussed. My purpose of this example was to show the importance of reason and how someone like my friend could justify himself in the sight of God)

I could not answer him and considered that he might be right and that my rejection of his view is purely based on my upbringing and not of my reasoning. My heart did object to it at first but I tried to view the act in a different and more positive light in order to be unbiased, and my heart did not object to it anymore. Before i was viewing this act in a negative light and that is why i believe my heart objected to it then. But both scenarios that i attmepted to comprehend can take place in reality. The negative more likely to occure then the positive. I dislike the idea of a one night stand personally.

If I am not mistaken, virginity in the Iranian culture is seen as a good thing and I believe that this is similar amongst Quranists. Ironically virginity in some places and in the sight of some people is seen as a bad thing. With the use of reason and the Quran, hopefully we will get to the truth.

[SarahY]

Peace

Some thoughts for you to reflect on:

f-r-j does not = to sex in Arabic.

If something is not clearly mentioned in black & white it doesn?t mean it is ok. If it?s not stated it doesn?t mean it is or isn?t prohibited, i dont entirely agree with your logic.

The surgeon can see the private part of the individual as the surgeon is committed to the individual by oath however the surgeon will not be able to go beyond seeing the private part (even though the individual has consented to operating on the private part) and thus be unable to a operate on the individual. This would be the case if we were to accept that the private parts can only be exposed and nothing more can be done to them. 

The surgeon example is a bad example. Protection the frj isn?t just about looking/seeing. why did you just deduce that? A surgeon is doing a job, if a surgeon is doing a job being with the surgeon and operation is fine because it is for righteous reasons i.e. better health. How is the frj being misused?

Sure lewdness is subjective. You said :

However when the act of sex is done between a couple who are both morally upright and are comfortable with each other and are not rushing one another and it does not go against their reason and heart prior to the act, then I see no controversy in such a case. I doubt that in such a case there is any lewdness.

You also mentioned verse 24:33 as an argument..  Why would marriage be told to seek if you can have mutual relationships with sex etc? wouldn?t marriage then be illogical? Not purposeful?

In conclusion, pre-marital sex is not prohibited in the Quran. There are clear limitations and subjective limitations. Issues such as a one night stand may possibly be justified in the light of the Quran. As outrageous as this claim may appear to some, I truly believe that it may hold some truth

.

If there are limitations how can one justify one night stands with some truth? Well realistically any verse could be interpreted to ones thoughts/wishes.

Your argument, if two people agree on something they can do it no one is stopping them. It doesn?t mean it is right. they do right between each other maybe? by both mutually agreeing but in terms of haqq I am not sure I can say so. there is no contract/witness? how does such a relationship happen. I decide I want this you agree let?s get it on? What's the difference from prostitution and that? And if it ends that night you never see her and she has a kid? You're responsible for a kid you don?t even know? Anyway there are many arguments for and against one night stands lets focus on your opinion about sex being ok quranically.

Quran didn?t say you?re allowed to have sex if 2 people mutually agree, so with your logic it would be wrong because it?s not mentioned.

If I am not mistaken, virginity in the Iranian culture is seen as a good thing and I believe that this is similar amongst Quranists. Ironically virginity in some places and in the sight of some people is seen as a bad thing. With the use of reason and the Quran, hopefully we will get to the truth.

Virginity is seen in most cultures as a good thing. Though virginity doesn?t make one ?good/pure?. For example if a person was married and divorced does that make them impure/bad because they?re not virgins anymore? For some people they'd think so which is pretty sad.

I think the way people view virginity as a bad thing is stupid. It?s neither a good nor a bad thing.

just my thoughts

peace

[nimnimak_11]

Sarah

Thank you for the feedback

f-r-j does not = to sex in Arabic.

Agreed.

If something is not clearly mentioned in black & white it doesn’t mean it is ok. If it’s not stated it doesn’t mean it is or isn’t prohibited, i dont entirely agree with your logic.

It is not stated in any way. That's why i argue that it's not forbidden. Can you think of ANY wrong action or concept that is not prohibited in the Quran in some way or overruled by another verse which we would think of as clearly wrong in life? I cannot.

Replace music with sex. Could you still put up the same argument? I know that sex and music are not the same things just as music and food are not the same things.  But the key here is that they are not BAD things unless transgressed. In sex you could transgress by (I'd rather not go into details) and in food, you could transgress by taking poison. Food is not prohibited (as it is a good in itself), but the poison is and in the case of sex, the act of sex itself is not prohibited(as it is not a bad in itself) but the transgression of it is (just like everyithing else)


Stealing is an obvious bad in itself, and it's explicitly forbidden.
If sex was a bad in itself, it would have been forbidden. But i could not find a reasonable implication and i searched alot and the best i could find was 24:33
and it was not good enough IMO as i will explain when i move on to the later parts of you post.

I think you might see pre-marital sex as a BAD IN ITSELF but how would you justify that if that is the case?

The surgeon example is a bad example. Protection the frj isn’t just about looking/seeing. why did you just deduce that? A surgeon is doing a job, if a surgeon is doing a job being with the surgeon and operation is fine because it is for righteous reasons i.e. better health. How is the frj being misused?

I agree that it's not just about the looking/seeing, but I thought the minimum form of protection starts with protecting it from the sight of others. In the case of the surgeon i agree that he is not doing anything wrong. That was my point. The reason I used that exmaple was to prevent possible objections to my argument.

You also mentioned verse 24:33 as an argument..  Why would marriage be told to seek if you can have mutual relationships with sex etc? wouldn’t marriage then be illogical? Not purposeful?

No it wouldn't. Would what your saying not be the equivolent of saying that the only purpose of marriage is sex? IMO Marriage is a more serious step in life and in a relationship. It is a much more serious commitment. Marriage is a commitment for life. Your responsibilities towards your partner greatly increases thus you need to have the means. Some may hasten towards this step without any idea of the responsibillities ahead or the seriousness of the commitment they are making. Where as in a relationship, such a responsiblility is not yet there. This does not mean or imply that sex is prohibited.

If there are limitations how can one justify one night stands with some truth? Well realistically any verse could be interpreted to ones thoughts/wishes.

No not all verses. Some clear, some subjective. Lewdness makes this topic subjective. People may interpret as they wish, but their intentions and heart, they are aware of. Thus The limitations are up to the individuals IMO. AS LONG AS THE TWO IN AGREEMENT CAUSE NO HARM TO ANY OTHERS, then the rest is between them and God. An individual with the use of their heart or reasoning must determine wether they are going against the source of righteousness or not. They must choose themselves. My point is that the Quran leaves this subjective just like some other issues such as dress code.

Personally i dislike the idea of one night stands and i have spoken to a friend who though not religious, shares the same views based on his heart and reasoning. I am doing something similar. I believe it forbidden to me as i consider it lewd. But I can understand how it can be argued otherwise by others that it is not lewd.

Your argument, if two people agree on something they can do it no one is stopping them. It doesn’t mean it is right. they do right between each other maybe? by both mutually agreeing but in terms of haqq I am not sure I can say so.

If it does not go against their heart and reason, and they do not harm others (part of the heart and reasoning process), how is this wrong in terms of justice?

This is subjective and controversial IMO but obviously somethings can easily be determined. Such as the inflicting of unneccessary harm during sex if....then that can be argued to be a transgression and is less controversial and subjective.

there is no contract/witness? how does such a relationship happen. I decide I want this you agree let’s get it on? What's the difference from prostitution and that? And if it ends that night you never see her and she has a kid? You're responsible for a kid you don’t even know? Anyway there are many arguments for and against one night stands lets focus on your opinion about sex being ok quranically.

I don't believe that there needs to be any contract other then the mutual agreement. I don't consider this kind of agreement to fall under 2:282 as i bleieve this applies ONLY when there is something of value involved or something that is time related. In the case of prostitution as money is involved, it will most likely fall under an on the spot kind of thing in 2:282

About the difference of a one night stand and a prostitute. One is getting paid the other is not. One does so for a living the other does so for fun/pleasure. A protitute may do this for both reasons....I don't know. My point is that both could be lewd and against AQ or both could be right and in line with AQ depending on the individuals. We cannot condemn or condone them IMO as nothing in AQ gives us to do so with except the subjective term of lewdness which means we can only disucss them unless (they harm others with their action) then it's different.

Quran didn’t say you’re allowed to have sex if 2 people mutually agree, so with your logic it would be wrong because it’s not mentioned.

Basically if some guy says to some girl "sex?" and she says "ok" and they begin, how can i fault them with respect to the Quran? What wrong have they done if they have not done anything against their heart reason and logic. Are we not just making sex something sacred or holy? It is a greatly valuable blessing. Overdo it and you may lose your your passion or apetite for it. This is a kind of transgression. Thus if the guy who asks the girl has just come back after......with another girl, then this can be argued to be overdoing it.

My reasoning would say i could not know. It is subjective unless others are harmed. I cannot disapprove or approve as i am not them. For me, a one stand is wrong thus if i carry it out, i would believe that i have done wrong and i would not be able to justify myself. But perhaps for someone else, it may not be wrong.

Virginity is seen in most cultures as a good thing. Though virginity doesn’t make one “good/pure”. For example if a person was married and divorced does that make them impure/bad because they’re not virgins anymore? For some people they'd think so which is pretty sad.

I think the way people view virginity as a bad thing is stupid. It’s neither a good nor a bad thing.

I totally agree. I think it is good that someone dosn't just sleep around with anyone. Shows restraint and shows that one is not just a slave to their desire. Again this is subjective though. In the exmaple I gave, the guy may just want to have some fun and thus may be in control of his desires.

Before i forget. About the point you made about the baby. Yes that does happen. Quiet alot in the UK apparently. Also in the UK there are many divorces and children suffer as a result. Marriage is not wrong but the way that some people in the UK carry it out is wrong and it leads to divorce and suffering for the kids. Same with this. Some will misuse and leave a girl there pregnant after a night. But how has such an individual used their heart reason and logic? How did such a girl choose such a guy?. The misuse of some or even the majority, does not make it right to forbid something for all.

[SarahY]

Salam

I think you might see pre-marital sex as a BAD IN ITSELF but how would you justify that if that is the case?

What exactly are you asking? How would I justify premarital sex as bad? People can easily take advantage, the premarital system has lack of trust. I don't see it as a serious relationship that's why i think it is bad.

The surgeon is doing good, by performing the operation. What good do you get from premarital sexual relations? Other than fulfilling a desire? Especially if it?s just one girl you met one night and decide you wanna fling.

We?re warned to stay away from zina, fahsha. I know it encompasses more than what the typical muslim thinks but how do you see it?

No it wouldn't. Would what your saying not be the equivolent of saying that the only purpose of marriage is sex? IMO Marriage is a more serious step in life and in a relationship. It is a much more serious commitment. Marriage is a commitment for life. Your responsibilities towards your partner greatly increases thus you need to have the means. Some may hasten towards this step without any idea of the responsibillities ahead or the seriousness of the commitment they are making. Where as in a relationship, such a responsiblility is not yet there. This does not mean or imply that sex is prohibited.

No I?m not saying it?s the only purpose but for some it could be. Though what are you saying then, a premarital relationships is just for sex? So MMA aren?t necessarily commitments for life their comments for when we both want? Sounds kinda prostitutional don?t you think?

Relationships without responsibility? Whoever came up with that nonsense? Lots of people don?t get married unless they have the means. why is marriage much more committed than a premarital relationship? even you recognise less commitment in such a relationship

Sex is a responsibility just because people use protection it doesn?t mean the lady will never get pregnant. It happens, what then? You think the baby won?t be your responsibility? Or is a premarital responsibility pleasure only?

No not all verses. Some clear, some subjective. Lewdness makes this topic subjective. People may interpret as they wish, but their intentions and heart, they are aware of. Thus The limitations are up to the individuals IMO. AS LONG AS THE TWO IN AGREEMENT CAUSE NO HARM TO ANY OTHERS, then the rest is between them and God. An individual with the use of their heart or reasoning must determine wether they are going against the source of righteousness or not. They must choose themselves. My point is that the Quran leaves this subjective just like some other issues such as dress code.

Ok, it seems odd to think two people agree on having sex together as righteous.

Dress code isn?t totally subjective, it states what is necessary.

If it does not go against their heart and reason, and they do not harm others (part of the heart and reasoning process), how is this wrong in terms of justice?

This is subjective and controversial IMO but obviously somethings can easily be determined. Such as the inflicting of unneccessary harm during sex if....then that can be argued to be a transgression and is less controversial and subjective.

The heart can be influenced by desire, reason can also be influenced how can you be sure your reasoning is just?

Well it could inflict a psychological harm.

I don't believe that there needs to be any contract other then the mutual agreement. I don't consider this kind of agreement to fall under 2:282 as i bleieve this applies ONLY when there is something of value involved or something that is time related. In the case of prostitution as money is involved, it will most likely fall under an on the spot kind of thing in 2:282

Prostitution isn?t always about money lots of people are in it for the fun. Value and time related? Relationships are not of value?

About the difference of a one night stand and a prostitute. One is getting paid the other is not. One does so for a living the other does so for fun/pleasure. A protitute may do this for both reasons....I don't know. My point is that both could be lewd and against AQ or both could be right and in line with AQ depending on the individuals. We cannot condemn or condone them IMO as nothing in AQ gives us to do so with except the subjective term of lewdness which means we can only disucss them unless (they harm others with their action) then it's different.

Ok, a waiting period for a divorced women is like what? 3 months? 3 period cycles? If I had sex ?cos I thought it?s halal and then decided nah stuff this guy the neighbour next door is looking pretty cute and decide to sleep with him? Do I have to wait 3 period cycles? or not, does this rule only apply to the one married? don?t you think quran would be clear about it if it was ok to have sex before marriage

How is this not injustice? It seems to me that it?s more about selfish pleasure otherwise why not marry the guy/girl? Is it simply a finance issue, or is it more than that?

Basically if some guy says to some girl "sex?" and she says "ok" and they begin, how can i fault them with respect to the Quran? What wrong have they done if they have not done anything against their heart reason and logic. Are we not just making sex something sacred or holy? It is a greatly valuable blessing. Overdo it and you may lose your your passion or apetite for it. This is a kind of transgression. Thus if the guy who asks the girl has just come back after......with another girl, then this can be argued to be overdoing it.

This subject could have a million if?s and buts, how can you genuinely be sure this person takes you seriously, they don?t want to commit to a relationship other than sex? They don?t want marriage then what the hell do they want to fulfil their desires? Aren?t we told about people who take up their desire as their Lords and warned about it?

I totally agree. I think it is good that someone dosn't just sleep around with anyone. Shows restraint and shows that one is not just a slave to their desire. Again this is subjective though. In the exmaple I gave, the guy may just want to have some fun and thus may be in control of his desires.

The last sentence made me laugh lol so having some fun = controlling desire more like feeding it and partaking in it? Food is good yeh? but we muslims can?t eat pig meat though if you agree that you want to eat pig meat you?re not harming anyone, what is the wrong in that?

Before i forget. About the point you made about the baby. Yes that does happen. Quiet alot in the UK apparently. Also in the UK there are many divorces and children suffer as a result. Marriage is not wrong but the way that some people in the UK carry it out is wrong and it leads to divorce and suffering for the kids. Same with this. Some will misuse and leave a girl there pregnant after a night. But how has such an individual used their heart reason and logic? How did such a girl choose such a guy?. The misuse of some or even the majority, does not make it right to forbid something for all.

Probably, though as a muslim you know you have the responsibility of your own child whether you divorce the wife or not. Generally people won?t marry an idiot, usually they marry someone because they have feelings, trust them or have some sort of traits, attributes, compatibility they like. Fall outs happen because humans are weak people aren?t always just. A guy isn?t always at fault.

Premarital relations are abused, you said ?fun? who said marriage can?t be fun? if premarital relations are solely about fun well that doesn?t seem so ethical it seems to be a life just about sex.

Peace

[simple]

I have to say this is the most anti quran, anti islam, anti peace thing anybody could have sugested. Would anybody here want to marry someone whom you know was having sexual relation without hesitation with others? they might just carry on with it after they are married as well, like one who starts smoking, how hard is it to give it up!



070.001
YUSUFALI: A questioner asked about a Penalty to befall-
PICKTHAL: A questioner questioned concerning the doom about to fall
SHAKIR: One demanding, demanded the chastisement which must befall
070.002
YUSUFALI: The Unbelievers, the which there is none to ward off,-
PICKTHAL: Upon the disbelievers, which none can repel,
SHAKIR: The unbelievers-- there is none to avert it--
.
.
.
070.029
YUSUFALI: And those who guard their chastity,
PICKTHAL: And those who preserve their chastity
SHAKIR: And those who guard their private parts,
070.030
YUSUFALI: Except with their wives and the (captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (then) they are not to be blamed,
PICKTHAL: Save with their wives and those whom their right hands possess, for thus they are not blameworthy;
SHAKIR: Except in the case of their wives or those whom their right hands possess-- for these surely are not to be blamed,


004.024
YUSUFALI: Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath Allah ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property,- desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.

[nimnimak_11]

Salam Sarah

The surgeon is doing good, by performing the operation. What good do you get from premarital sexual relations? Other than fulfilling a desire? Especially if it’s just one girl you met one night and decide you wanna fling.

What's wrong with fulfilling a desire if it does not contradict with morals? Fulfilling desires is wrong only when they contradict morals and principles as that is when you are only following your desire.

We’re warned to stay away from zina, fahsha. I know it encompasses more than what the typical muslim thinks but how do you see it?

Zina to me is when some who is married, has sex outside of marriage. In other words, adultery
Fahsha is subjective yet clear in certain cases such as porn or sexual fetishes and so on. To watch them is a type of lewdness IMO.

No I’m not saying it’s the only purpose but for some it could be. Though what are you saying then, a premarital relationships is just for sex? So MMA aren’t necessarily commitments for life their comments for when we both want? Sounds kinda prostitutional don’t you think?

Relationships without responsibility? Whoever came up with that nonsense? Lots of people don’t get married unless they have the means. why is marriage much more committed than a premarital relationship? even you recognise less commitment in such a relationship

Sex is a responsibility just because people use protection it doesn’t mean the lady will never get pregnant. It happens, what then? You think the baby won’t be your responsibility? Or is a premarital responsibility pleasure only?

Again i will say that i agree with marriage as a stronger commiment then a premarital relationship BUT this does not mean that sex is exclusive to marriages.

Ok, it seems odd to think two people agree on having sex together as righteous.

It is not about wether it is righteouss. it is about wether it is unrighteouss or not. If unrighteouss, then wrong and thus most likely prohibited. If not then most likely not prohibited. I am not claiming that having sex=righteoussness. What i am claiming is that if two people agree to have sex, it is not NECCESSARILY unrighteouss.

Dress code isn’t totally subjective, it states what is necessary.

Same with premarital sex.

The heart can be influenced by desire, reason can also be influenced how can you be sure your reasoning is just?

You have no other tool to use in life. Everything goes through the heart and reason. Individuals are responsible for using these tools given to them as correctly as possible and to the best of their abillity. That means IMPARTIALLITY and openmindedness and the refusal to manipulate your own reason to suite your desire. You will be held accountable for such misuses.

Ok, a waiting period for a divorced women is like what? 3 months? 3 period cycles? If I had sex ‘cos I thought it’s halal and then decided nah stuff this guy the neighbour next door is looking pretty cute and decide to sleep with him? Do I have to wait 3 period cycles? or not, does this rule only apply to the one married? don’t you think quran would be clear about it if it was ok to have sex before marriage

The waiting period is specific to divorce. So in the exmaple you give, no you don't. You could just jump from one guy to another if it does not go against your moral principles. I was thinking if sex before marriage was prohibited, it would have been made clear just as zina is made clear. As it is not and as there are restrictions and limitations with respect to sex, i understand that all sex is allowed except what is restricet and limited.

How is this not injustice? It seems to me that it’s more about selfish pleasure

Selfish pleasure? Both sides are agreeing to something! They are both fulfilling a desire. IF IT CONFLICTS WITH THEIR MORALITY, THEN IT BECOMES AN ISSUE. THAT IS WHEN ONLY THE DESIRE IS BEING FOLLOWED. Considering what i've just said how else can you say this is wrong?

otherwise why not marry the guy/girl? Is it simply a finance issue, or is it more than that?

It could be finance, it could be that the individuals are not seeking anything long term, it could be various other reasons.
You are saying that because they refuse to marry, they are being selfish? Because they do not restrict sex untill marriage they are being selfish? How are they being selfish when they are not harming anyone else and they both agree to this?

This subject could have a million if’s and buts, how can you genuinely be sure this person takes you seriously, they don’t want to commit to a relationship other than sex? They don’t want marriage then what the hell do they want to fulfil their desires? Aren’t we told about people who take up their desire as their Lords and warned about it?[/quote]

Ok so basically your saying that you shouldn't enter a relationship just for sex and that if you do so, theres a chance that you could take your desire as your lord. On what grounds? Two people get in a relationship just so they could fulfill their desire of let's say singing to each other. Have they taken their desire as their lord??

You become a slave to your desire when you reject your moral principles for your desire. Thus if the two who entered a relationship just so they could sing to one another and by singing they have gone against their moral principles, then they have possibley taken their desire as their lord. The same could be said about sex. I think (not sure just making a guess) the issue here is that you see the act of sex as someting that's bad initself regardless of wether it goes against prinicples or not. So even if i describe the least controversial scenario of premarrital sex, you would still reject it on the basis that why don't they just wait untill their married and that they are being selfish and giving into their desire if they don't.

The last sentence made me laugh lol so having some fun = controlling desire more like feeding it and partaking in it? Food is good yeh? but we muslims can’t eat pig meat though if you agree that you want to eat pig meat you’re not harming anyone, what is the wrong in that?

Ye i guess it was a pretty funny link but relevant. If you have sex every 2 hours (though impossible), most likely you'll get bored of it or just lose the desire to have sex for a while. This is regardless of wether your in a marriage or not. If your in a marriage and you have sex too much, then you have transgressed and most likely you will not have the same passion or enjoymen as you could have. This is what i was trying to convey.

As for swine, it is clearly forbidden to us muslims.
Premarrital sex is not Could you provide a reasonable verse for this?

Probably, though as a muslim you know you have the responsibility of your own child whether you divorce the wife or not. Generally people won’t marry an idiot, usually they marry someone because they have feelings, trust them or have some sort of traits, attributes, compatibility they like. Fall outs happen because humans are weak people aren’t always just. A guy isn’t always at fault.

Mostly agreed.

Premarital relations are abused, you said “fun” who said marriage can’t be fun? if premarital relations are solely about fun well that doesn’t seem so ethical it seems to be a life just about sex.

I certainly did not say marriage can't be fun. I though it was meant to be fun, fulfilling, beautiful and so on. Ok for less controversy let us assume a premarital sexual relation where sex is not the focal point. The focal point is how well the two get along. Note that this does not mean no sex. Sex will happen about eeeehhhh lets say once every two weeks (just to make sure their not transgressing ) Now would still say this is wrong???

[nimnimak_11]

Peace simple

I have to say this is the most anti quran, anti islam, anti peace thing anybody could have sugested.

Why is that?

Would anybody here want to marry someone whom you know was having sexual relation without hesitation with others? they might just carry on with it after they are married as well, like one who starts smoking, how hard is it to give it up!

They may and they may not.

070.001
YUSUFALI: A questioner asked about a Penalty to befall-
PICKTHAL: A questioner questioned concerning the doom about to fall
SHAKIR: One demanding, demanded the chastisement which must befall
070.002
YUSUFALI: The Unbelievers, the which there is none to ward off,-
PICKTHAL: Upon the disbelievers, which none can repel,
SHAKIR: The unbelievers-- there is none to avert it--

.

Relevance

070.029
YUSUFALI: And those who guard their chastity,
PICKTHAL: And those who preserve their chastity
SHAKIR: And those who guard their private parts,
070.030
YUSUFALI: Except with their wives and the (captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (then) they are not to be blamed,
PICKTHAL: Save with their wives and those whom their right hands possess, for thus they are not blameworthy;
SHAKIR: Except in the case of their wives or those whom their right hands possess-- for these surely are not to be blamed,

Good quote

004.024
YUSUFALI: Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath Allah ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property,- desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.

This verse is subject to marriage only. It does not relate to MMA.

[Edip Yuksel]

The first limitation I will explain via the following Verses of 23:5-6
23:5 And they keep covered their private parts.
23:6 Except around their spouses (azwaaj), or those who are maintained by their oaths (ma malakat aymanukum), they are free from blame.
23:7 But whoever seeks anything beyond this, then these are the transgressors.

The verse 23:5 is mistranslated. The verse is not about COVERING, but about protecting one's sexual intercourse. The verses are clear in prohibiting extramarital affairs.

Peace,
Edip

[simple]

Peace simple


Why is that?

because the quran is against it 100%

They may and they may not.

Well the quran thinks they will that is why their punishment is half.
[/quote]

Relevance

all these ayah's go together look the context of the sura and the ayah's.

070.001
YUSUFALI: A questioner asked about a Penalty to befall-
PICKTHAL: A questioner questioned concerning the doom about to fall
SHAKIR: One demanding, demanded the chastisement which must befall
070.002
YUSUFALI: The Unbelievers, the which there is none to ward off,-
PICKTHAL: Upon the disbelievers, which none can repel,
SHAKIR: The unbelievers-- there is none to avert it--
.
.
.
070.029
YUSUFALI: And those who guard their chastity,
PICKTHAL: And those who preserve their chastity
SHAKIR: And those who guard their private parts,
070.030
YUSUFALI: Except with their wives and the (captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (then) they are not to be blamed,
PICKTHAL: Save with their wives and those whom their right hands possess, for thus they are not blameworthy;
SHAKIR: Except in the case of their wives or those whom their right hands possess-- for these surely are not to be blamed,

Good quoteThis verse is subject to marriage only. It does not relate to MMA.

there are no slaves in the ayah and neither the quran - or is that who you like to do it with?


let me translate it - make it a little understandable.

YUSUFALI: Except with their partners whom they have undertaken by oath,- for (then) they are not to be ....

[simple]

Sorry NIMNIMAK,

This makes more sense; the ayah's seem to be a continuous theme of a sort;


070.019
YUSUFALI: Truly man was created very impatient;-
070.020
YUSUFALI: Fretful when evil touches him;
070.021
YUSUFALI: And niggardly when good reaches him;-
070.022
YUSUFALI: Not so those devoted to Prayer;-
.
.
.
070.026
YUSUFALI: And those who hold to the truth of the Day of Judgment;
070.027
YUSUFALI: And those who fear the displeasure of their Lord,-
070.028
YUSUFALI: For their Lord's displeasure is the opposite of Peace and Tranquillity;-
070.029
YUSUFALI: And those who guard their chastity,
070.030
                   : Except with their partners whom they have undertaken by oath,- for (then) they are not to be blamed,
070.031
YUSUFALI: But those who trespass beyond this are transgressors;-



the sura is outlining those of the garden and the opposites- i think, lets be of those of the garden.

God Bless.