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

[Mazhar]

And women other than the identified ones have been made permissible [knot/restriction removed] for you [they are made permissible for the purpose] so that you sincerely seek them with your wealth in the manner of those who seek women to take them in the protective fold [of Nikah]/to make them a pearl of their life/home; and not for seeking them with wealth in the manner of debauch men for sexual lust/merely for flowing out the "water".

Does this basic principle leave any roon for anyone to have sex with a woman except enganging her in marriage/Nikah?

[afridi220]

The believers are... those who protect their sexual organs except from their spouses... Therefore, whosoever seeks more beyond that [in sexual gratification], then they are the transgressors." (23:5-6)

?Those who invoke not, with Allah, any other god, nor slay such life as God has made sacred, except for just cause, nor commit fornication; and any that does this (not only) meets punishment (but) the Penalty on the Day of Judgment will be doubled to him, and he will dwell therein in ignominy.?
(Al-Furqan, 25:68-69).

[nimnimak_11]

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

Salam Edip

I would have thought that covering is a form of protection. But cover and protect are different so I will agree. It says protect/guard the private part (literally) even if we take it to mean protect your sexual intercourse (which i take it to be part of the meaning as there's more to protecting those parts then just not using them for sex), we still have to accept that the MMA and azwaaj are an exception to this protection. Which is PARTLY why I argue for the possibility of sex with MMA.

Where are the verses that make sex exclusive to marriages? So far the arguments that some have put up for the above question is that the Quran gives instructions with respect to marriage that implies that sex is acceptable within marriage. This can be seen in the verses which focus on divorce.

The problem i see with this argument:
1) Everyone approaches this with the preconcieved notion that sex is automatically forbidden to all except marriage. No one seems to consider the possibility that this idea (i'm not sure where from the Quran they get this perhaps the concept of chastity in which i will expand on in another post today Godwilling) is wrong and God did not actually prohobit this Everyone automatically sees sex as something bad and they put a prohibitation stamp on it just like that! Thus people think that because there are no verses that give similar implications about sex with respect with the MMA, it is forbidden EVEN THOUGH the Quran is clear that the azwaaj AND the MMA are an EXcEPTION to the protection of the private parts and EVEN THOUGH the Quran has placed restrictions and limitations for sex.

Bro Edip i know you to be very busy. Thus i do not expect any further replies from you but your contribution to this topic (if you find time) will be appreciated. I feel that i do have a strong argument here so long as people approach it WITHOUT the preconcieved notion that sex is bad UNLESS done in marriage. I am arguing that under CERTAIN CONDITIONS, sex outside marriage is completely fine. The spectrum is controversial but some cases at the positive end which have less controvorsy are 95% clear to me to be not forbidden neither by the heart, reason nor by the Quran.

Peace

[nimnimak_11]

Salam Simple

because the quran is against it 100%

I could claim the Quran is against yoga 100% evidence is needed my friend.
Have a look at my reply to Edip. I think (i could be wrong) that you see premarital sex as a bad in itself.

Well the quran thinks they will that is why their punishment is half.

If God thought that they would, would God permit it in the first place? Perhaps God would for some reasons unknown to me just like our creation was objected to by the Angels. But the verse you speak of is about Marriage. Not about MMA.

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

I never took MMA to mean slaves.

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

My dear friend how do you see this relate to sex with MMA. In the sense that one is being hasty and impatient? THE SAME COULD BE SAID FOR MARRIAGES OR ANYTHING ELSE. Man could be impatient towards continuing his commitment to upholding the Salat. Man could be impatient and rush towards marriage.

In this case you are automatically assuming that premarital sex = Impatience regardless of context and the individuals
Assume i do the same with Marriage and think anyone who gets married is being hasty. THAT'S NOT THE CASE. SOME PEOPLE MAY BE HASTY TOWARDS MARRIAGE SOME WILL NOT. It depends on context and the individuals

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.

Indeed.
Master of the day of judgment. You alone we serve and you alone we ask for help. Guide us to the straght path.

But let me emphasise something from what you have quoted:

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,

If the translation is as you say it is, my whole argument would collapse and i would acknoweldge what you say. But i think the word OR is crucial:

Except on (to) their spouses or what their rights/oaths owned/possessed , so they truly are not blameworthy/blamed.  

[nimnimak_11]

And women other than the identified ones have been made permissible [knot/restriction removed] for you [they are made permissible for the purpose] so that you sincerely seek them with your wealth in the manner of those who seek women to take them in the protective fold [of Nikah]/to make them a pearl of their life/home; and not for seeking them with wealth in the manner of debauch men for sexual lust/merely for flowing out the "water".

Does this basic principle leave any roon for anyone to have sex with a woman except enganging her in marriage/Nikah?

Yes

For a moment assume that sex is not bad outside of marriage untill proven to you otherwise Quranically.
Now i will explain:
The verse is clear that to approach MARRIAGE with sex PRIMARILY in mind is wrong. Sex isn't wrong. I will emphasise again that sex isn't wrong but to think that marriage is JUST about sex is wrong. As you know marriage is a very serious commitment. Any idiot who approachs a marraige purely for sex that marriage will not last (most likely). Marriage is different to the conept of MMA which i am arguing for.

Does this answer your question?

[SarahY]

Salam Nimnimak

one may think having sex with someone even if they agree is contradicting morals. Sex is more like sacred not bad how you're thinking i'm perceiving it.

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

Same with premarital sex.

I disagree.

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.

people don't intentionally manipulate their reasoning, well maybe some do but it's still possible to make errors with our logic/reason even though we weren't intending it

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??

hmm.. maybe what makes you think sex is ok? that you can un-guard your frj in front of MMA but frj does not = sex? so how is that so?

anyway some thoughts:

Sex as bad before marriage could be a preconceived notion probably and it is also a western ideology that sex is ok. Even a teacher told us at school once ?try before you buy? I thought that was pretty shallow and bad advice for teenage girls.. though ideologies are everywhere.

Before I did think that relationships were ok or a possibility but I?ve come to think otherwise. The claim seems weak because why is there no indication of a waiting period for the MMA?s after breaking off the relationship???  They wouldn?t need one because well they wouldn?t be engaging in sex what other logic is there?

I could have a Female MMA it doesn?t mean I can have sexual relations with her.

God didn?t actually halalify premarital sex either.

No one is saying sex is bad, almost everything is good and bad depending on the context.

If sex was really ok why aren?t MMA?s given the criteria of a waiting period if the relationship ends? Why is marriage promoted? Why do married women need to wait? What makes MMA relationships free off the hook? To me this holds stronger arguments against premarital (sexual) relationships.

[nimnimak_11]

Salam Sarah
I'm Nima by the way

one may think having sex with someone even if they agree is contradicting morals. Sex is more like sacred not bad how you're thinking i'm perceiving it.

IF they think like that, then two things should happen IMO. Justify why they think that (sex contraditing morals) without bias. Then if they think it's not contradicting morals, they should check to make sure it's not forbidden in AQ then not prohibit it to themselves. but if they think it contradicts morals (after justifying why it contradicts morals in an unbiased manner) then they should prohibit it upon themselves.

So if you do see sex as sacred or see it as contradicting morals and you do this without pre-concieved notions and bias (one possible moral contradiction IMO is that you could unintentionally hurt someone) then God bless you keep away from sex untill you do marry.

people don't intentionally manipulate their reasoning, well maybe some do but it's still possible to make errors with our logic/reason even though we weren't intending it

Of course it is possible to make errors with those tools. We are not God. Same as it is possible to make errors with translations and interpretaions from Quran.
I have come across this argument quiet a few times. Ultimately, you have to use those faculties and they are your only tool to acknowledge the Quran to understand it and so on. This applies to life. You are responsible for doing your best to use them. If you make a mistake you can justify yourself i you did not ignore them. But if you ignored them or misused/manipulate them, you cannot justify yourself.

Could you ever in the sight of God argue that: though my faculties which you gave me disagreed with it i still prohibited myself something.

NOTE that this is different to something like the swine example. With Swine, it is CLEARLY forbidden in AQ. I hope to justify forbidding swine upon myself in the sight of God by the following argument:

With the faculties you gave me, i used them to acknowledge all the verses in AQ to be divine (code 19) though it was as clear as day that eating swine is not wrong (when contrasted with other harmful foods that were not forbidden) it was too clear to me in AQ that it was forbidden thus based on my acknowledgement of AQ i did what i did. Furthermore i was not harming anyone else by doing what i did ( i say this because though lashing (for adultery) is clear in AQ, i would never carry it out for it is 100% against my heart but most importantly i would be harming someone ALOT where as with forbidding swine, i harm no one and it's not that big an issue)

The lashing issue is beside the point and i am aware of arguments in which it is not for infliciting pain based on a certain word in the verse which implies this(can't remember) I use it to show an example of justification.

anyway some thoughts:

Sex as bad before marriage could be a preconceived notion probably and it is also a western ideology that sex is ok. Even a teacher told us at school once “try before you buy” I thought that was pretty shallow and bad advice for teenage girls.. though ideologies are everywhere.

EXACTLY. That's why we have to get to the truth without BIAS!

Before I did think that relationships were ok or a possibility but I’ve come to think otherwise. The claim seems weak because why is there no indication of a waiting period for the MMA’s after breaking off the relationship???  They wouldn’t need one because well they wouldn’t be engaging in sex what other logic is there?

See my reply to Mazhar. If it fails to answer your question, ask me again an i'l hopefully provide a more detailed answer if you need.

I could have a Female MMA it doesn’t mean I can have sexual relations with her.

I KNOW. Nor does it mean that you can't. Unless stated or Clearly implied otherwise in AQ.

I do not mean to make assumotions please forgive me for saying. But have you read all of my article in detail? I understand that it could not become clear enough in one read but just want to know do you think you gave it sufficient time? I would not be upset or offended if you have not. I just want to know

God didn’t actually halalify premarital sex either.

True but God did not haramify it either.

No one is saying sex is bad, almost everything is good and bad depending on the context.

If sex was really ok why aren’t MMA’s given the criteria of a waiting period if the relationship ends? Why is marriage promoted? Why do married women need to wait? What makes MMA relationships free off the hook? To me this holds stronger arguments against premarital (sexual) relationships.

Please look at my reply to Mazhar and if you think that it is insufficient, let me know so I have a chance of better explaining.

[nimnimak_11]

The believers are... those who protect their sexual organs except from their spouses... Therefore, whosoever seeks more beyond that [in sexual gratification], then they are the transgressors." (23:5-6)

?Those who invoke not, with Allah, any other god, nor slay such life as God has made sacred, except for just cause, nor commit fornication; and any that does this (not only) meets punishment (but) the Penalty on the Day of Judgment will be doubled to him, and he will dwell therein in ignominy.?
(Al-Furqan, 25:68-69).

Salam Afridi

23:5-6. except from their spouses OR mma
25:68 والذين لايدعون مع الله الها اخر ولايقتلون النفس التي حرم الله الا بالحق ولايزنون ومن يفعل ذلك يلق اثاما

Zina: Adultery. I see it as someone who is married who has sex outsied of this marriage.

[SarahY]

Salam Nima

Lol off course I read what you wrote that?s not to say I don?t have a thick skull but seriously I can see what you are saying I?m just sharing an opposing view.

So if you do see sex as sacred or see it as contradicting morals and you do this without pre-concieved notions and bias (one possible moral contradiction IMO is that you could unintentionally hurt someone) then God bless you keep away from sex untill you do marry.

Lol thanks for the advice, if I get married sure.

Well we?re trying to get to the truth but you?ve already concluded an answer.

You?re reply to Mazhar was:

Yes

For a moment assume that sex is not bad outside of marriage untill proven to you otherwise Quranically.
Now i will explain:
The verse is clear that to approach MARRIAGE with sex PRIMARILY in mind is wrong. Sex isn't wrong. I will emphasise again that sex isn't wrong but to think that marriage is JUST about sex is wrong. As you know marriage is a very serious commitment. Any idiot who approachs a marraige purely for sex that marriage will not last (most likely). Marriage is different to the conept of MMA which i am arguing for.

Does this answer your question?

No one is saying approach marriage with sex but rather marriage allows for that avenue in a halal/permissible approach. Another thought came to me. We are garments of one another (spouses) 2:187? Why isn?t that in regards to MMA? This gives a stronger implication that mma isn?t about sex or ok for sex.

The concept of MMA to me isn?t just purely about relationships like dating, premarital sexual stuff. But my impression of your thought is because the frj can be unprotected in their presence then it would mean sex is ok?

If mma?s have no rules in terms of relationships well who would want to get married? why is marriage better? What is the difference with mma and marriage?

Peace

[nimnimak_11]

Salam Sarah

Lol off course I read what you wrote that?s not to say I don?t have a thick skull but seriously I can see what you are saying I?m just sharing an opposing view.

Well we?re trying to get to the truth but you?ve already concluded an answer.

I have not concluded yet. I am hoping that no one has as that will keep the mind open and impartial. I have come up with an argument. The argument concludes an answer. I cannot conclude untill i hear opposing views and address them. If i fail....then i reject premarital sex.

No one is saying approach marriage with sex but rather marriage allows for that avenue in a halal/permissible approach. Another thought came to me. We are garments of one another (spouses) 2:187? Why isn?t that in regards to MMA? This gives a stronger implication that mma isn?t about sex or ok for sex.

The verses that are about marriage are for marriage alone You can't related them to MMAs. You keep doing this
I'l explain in a seperate post where i hope to also address the topic of chastity as these seem to be where the greatest objections arise from.

The concept of MMA to me isn?t just purely about relationships like dating, premarital sexual stuff. But my impression of your thought is because the frj can be unprotected in their presence then it would mean sex is ok?

Yes. But you forget my argument about the subjective restrictions in AQ.

If mma?s have no rules in terms of relationships well who would want to get married? why is marriage better? What is the difference with mma and marriage?

Isn't that answer clear? To start a family. To live with someone for the rest of your life. To show the person you are with or the one you choose how much you love them by proposing to spend the rest of your life with them.

In mma this ranges from the:
bottom of the spectrum in which it's just about sex and fun.
The middle of the spectrum which could be about getting to know someone and trying to live them
to the top of the spectrum in which all the above is in place apart from status "married"

I know you would argue something like: Those in the middle and top of the spectrum. Can't they wait untill their married before they fulfil their selfish sexual desire? Just in case you put up a similar argument My answer would be:

Why is it selfish desire? Replace sex with any kind of physical contact and imagine that you thought you can't even kiss or hold hands together untill you are married EVEN THOUGH IT DOES NOT FEEL WRONG BECAUSE YOU HAVE BEEN TOGETHER FOR SO LONG and EVEN THOUGH it is NOT prohibited in AQ.

Couples who are close enough and feel comfortable enough to have sex should restrain because... It is a selfish desire? says who though?