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

[rararanran]

Please cite that aya qhere the qur'an says such a thing.

Salaam

Please cite that aya qhere the qur'an says such a thing.

Salaam

3:4
And if you fear that you will not deal justly with the orphan girls, then marry those that please you of [other] women, two or three or four. But if you fear that you will not be just, then [marry only] one or those your right hand possesses. That is more suitable that you may not incline [to injustice].

33:4
Allah has not made for a man two hearts in his interior. And He has not made your wives whom you declare unlawful your mothers. And he has not made your adopted sons your [true] sons. That is [merely] your saying by your mouths, but Allah says the truth, and He guides to the way.

even marrying your adopted son or daughter (which god consider our adopted son or daughter not as our children, but just as a friend in our care) is allowed, but like polygamy, divorce, beer, gamble,
its not haram by god, but it will degrade your degree as human.

its not haram but i will abstain from all of those deeds to escalate my degree as human in god's sight

[huruf]

None of the two ayas you mention authorize what you say.

4.3 tells people to arrange for the marriage of those willing to the mothers of the orphans, no to the orphans

33.4 where in this aya do you see any talk of marriage to adopted son or to anything else. It is nto talking about marriage.

If anybody goes around reading things that are ot there, o wonder that anything is obligatory or prohibited or allowed at will, you just have to say that it says what it does not say and there you go.

I am a bit dumbfounded

Salaam 

[rararanran]

None of the two ayas you mention authorize what you say.

4.3 tells people to arrange for the marriage of those willing to the mothers of the orphans, no to the orphans

33.4 where in this aya do you see any talk of marriage to adopted son or to anything else. It is nto talking about marriage.

If anybody goes around reading things that are ot there, o wonder that anything is obligatory or prohibited or allowed at will, you just have to say that it says what it does not say and there you go.

I am a bit dumbfounded

Salaam

4:3 nothing there talk about anybody mother, u make things up

33:4 this ayat says about marry mother of the orphan,
but if u didnt marry their mother and u only adopted them, they are not considered as a son or daughter of you,

then my self asking, wait.. so my adopted son is not considered by god as my son or daughter if i didnt marry their mother?
wait a second.. then who will he/she be to me?

33:5
Call them by [the names of] their fathers; it is more just in the sight of Allah . But if you do not know their fathers - then they are [still] your brothers in religion and those entrusted to you. And there is no blame upon you for that in which you have erred but [only for] what your hearts intended. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful.

they are considered as "brother and sister in religion" like you n ur wife are brother n sister in religion but not sibling.

it says what it does not say??
so what do u think about marrying ur adopted son or daughter, is that allowed or not?

[Timotheus]

Peace,

The Quran clearly states those prohibited in marriage, and clearly states those permitted.

[huruf]

4:3 nothing there talk about anybody mother, u make things up

33:4 this ayat says about marry mother of the orphan,
but if u didnt marry their mother and u only adopted them, they are not considered as a son or daughter of you,

then my self asking, wait.. so my adopted son is not considered by god as my son or daughter if i didnt marry their mother?
wait a second.. then who will he/she be to me?

33:5
Call them by [the names of] their fathers; it is more just in the sight of Allah . But if you do not know their fathers - then they are [still] your brothers in religion and those entrusted to you. And there is no blame upon you for that in which you have erred but [only for] what your hearts intended. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful.

they are considered as "brother and sister in religion" like you n ur wife are brother n sister in religion but not sibling.

it says what it does not say??
so what do u think about marrying ur adopted son or daughter, is that allowed or not?

4Now the other ayas you ention .3 speaks of marrying the nisaa'. Nisaa' are women, grown up women, not children.
and in 4.127 the yatamaa annisaa'  are clearly mentionned. Where did you ever get the idea that it is children and not women those who are recommended to marry?

Now the other ayas you mention do not say a word about marriage, something is said about repudiation which the Qur'an disapproves, but about marriage they do not say anything at all.

If you are able to find inthem something about marriage, then you do not need to read the Qur'an at all, just make it up all of it. No need to quote or anything.

Salaam

[Scrappy-doo]

I have to agree with "Simple", this whole thread is ridiculous and does nothing but make a mockery of sacred scripture. The entire premise of the "argument" is that "ma malakat aymanukum" in 23:6 denotes a different category of persons other than spouses. As "Simple" pointed out on page 2, and has subsequently been ignored, the use of the conjunction "aw" does not necessarily correspond to the english word "or". It can, and is, used as an amplifying conjunction, especially following a negation, see Lane's: Book 1 Page 122. Alternatively, Muhammad Asad translates "aw" at 23:6 as a clarifier: "[not giving way to their desires] with any but their spouses - that is, those whom they rightfully possess [through wedlock]". Thus we see that this so called argument has nothing left to stand on. The other verses mentioned, such as 4:24-25 and 24:33 are frankly irrelevant to the discussion, since the argument is that sex outside of marriage is permissible. In fact 24:33 just blows the entire argument out of the water: for the relevant word there is Ghayn-Nun-Ya, which means to be content, satisfied, to be free of need, see Lane's: Book 1 page 2302. Are we to be "satisfied/content" with casual sex? Or, what are we to stand in no need of? It's totally absurd! Those who cannot marry should content themselves with staying chaste, or be free from the want of sexual desires...until a such a time as God enriches them from his bounty.

All this is really child's play though, because the whole argument goes so obviously and clearly against the spirit and tenor of scripture that the level of dishonesty required to put it forward is astonishing. Remember, this is not just about sex between a man and a woman who are betrothed, but rather what's openly being promoted is causual sex with a "girlfriend" or "boyfriend", of which the logical conclusion was drawn at the end of the opening post in the thread: One night stands. It makes perfect "sense", since you can have sex with your girlfriend because you are somehow bonded with her by some "oath" that has never actually been declared or contracted; why not have sex after a couple of hours at the club together? I mean we don't actually have to take an oath to make the bond, it's somehow magically implied. No, to anyone who is honest "those who our right hands/oaths possess" ARE our spouses because, obviously, these are the ones with whom we have taken vows and thus bonded ourselves, not to mention the giving of a dowry.

This whole line of argumentation is an insult to those who actually believe in the Most Holy and True God, and the final judgment. It should be pretty clear from the opening post that this person does not submit to our Lord and Creator, as he constantly emphasizes that "he" does not see anything wrong, or what matters is what "our" hearts and reason tell us and that this is sufficient to "justify" us. NO, what matters is what our Lord tells us, not what we think should be wrong or right. Thus he rejects a divinely revealed truth.

As a side note, it is no suprise that the pro abortion kafirs all came on board. In 17:31 Our Lord specifically uses waw-lam-dal which denotes more than simply a child out of the womb, rather it specifies that which is begotten, generated, fathered...which is why it is used to refute Christian claims about Jesus in 19:35. Afterall, Christians don't believe Jesus was God only after he was born, as the nicene creed states he was "begotten, not made" by the Father "before all the worlds". so, this is the mechanism by which Trinitarians are able to say that the Son (Jesus) is of the same substance as the Father. This is what our Lord refutes, and in a brilliantly subtle fashion by using "waladin", indicating that 1) God did not take a spouse, therefore does not "beget" and thus the Son cannot be of the same "substance" as the Father and 2) Demonstrates that Waw-Lam_Dal is not simply used to describe a child out of the womb.         

    I was actually going to wait until I had read all 164,0000 pages before commenting. Thank God I only had to get as far as page 19. Geez! at one point I thought my head was going to drop off, roll around the floor, and burst into flames! 

I completely agree with you Hoppean and Simple.  The word مَلَكَتْ / malakat, usually translated as possess in 23:6:6 refers to entitlement through an oath or contract. It's more like a type of situation, rather than a type of person. If you look at the occurrences of this phrase, the meaning; rightfully entitled, reads well, whether my Lord is speaking of a slave, servant, orphan or Mrs.

http://dictionary.reverso.net/arabic-english/%D9%85%D9%8E%D9%84%D9%8E%D9%83%D9%8E%D8%AA%D9%92

23:6  "Except with any but their spouses - OF ALL you are rightfully entitled..."  (in other words your Mesdames)


I used conjunctions of and all because men are allowed up to 4 wives.   

[progressive1993]

4:23 Forbidden for you are your mothers, your daughters, your sisters, your fathers' sisters, your mothers' sisters, the daughters of your brother, and the daughters of your sister, your foster mothers who suckled you, your sisters from suckling, the mothers of your wives, and your step-daughters residing in your homes from your wives which you have already consummated the marriage with; if you have not consummated the marriage then there is no sin upon you; and the wives of your sons that are from your seed, and that you join between two sisters except what has already been done. God is Forgiving, Compassionate.

4:24 And "al muhsanati" except "ma malakat aymanakum." This is God's ordinance to you, and lawful for you are those whom you seek with your wealth muhsinina, not musafihina. Then as to those whom you benefitted from, give them their ujuruhunna as appointed; and there is no blame on you about what you mutually agree after what is appointed; surely God is Knowing, Wise.

Ergo; MMA is/can be part of "al muhsanati" and we cannot marry (and have sex?) with al muhsanti if they arent MMA. The question is - what exactly do both of those terms entail? Seems like "al muhsanati" cannot do zina as per verse 24:23. So muhsanti are chaste except the MMA? What about those who are wives, which is a different category than MMA? Can al muhsanati be wives isntead of being MMA - what are the details? Let's reignite this conerversation and topic! 

[progressive1993]

Under my analysis of 4:24, let's break it down;
Again here is the Quran Corpus Word By Word link, which is crucial to understand - http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=4&verse=24#%284:24:1%29


And lawful for you are (all women) besides those, provided that you seek (them) with your property,
- Man absolutely MUST give wealth to woman, that legitimises the relation


Taking (them) in chastity (muhsinina)
- Man and woman are getting together to STAY TOGETHER, plain and simple, no "I'll stay with this girl until I find better then dump her in the ditch"
Please see further meanings - http://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=HSn#%284:24:19%29, of which you shall note that one is to guard, protect, like a fortress; a strong marriage is of course guarded, protected... like a fortress


Not committing lust/indecency (fahisha)
- As again, this statement makes the above very clear. This is the difference between sensual relations of love, and sensual relations of lust and promiscuity. Some people have a single partner for 20 years, "unmarried". While others, on the very same "unmarried" level have 20 partners... in one year  . So we can see here is specified the crucial difference between the two. One type is perfectly within their right, the other type has transgressed beyond all bounds.

Then as to those whom you profit by, give them their dowries as appointed; and there is no blame on you about what you mutually agree after what is appointed; surely Allah is Knowing, Wise.
- I have no comments here, I believe the prior clauses clarify it all.

Then also from the next clause/verse in 4:25 we have that secret sexual relations are expressedly forbidden. This should cut most of the fancy desire for sex outside of marriage for any sincere one. Let's not play dress up with our desires. Whether you are male or female part of you hopes that sex outside of marriage is legal so you can go and bang everything in sight then go get married and still have your cake and eat it. No, it doesn't work like this either and if you transgress, then that is what you have earned.


To summarise, here is my present understanding of the conditions that legitimise a sexual relationship

* The man explicitly seeks the woman with his wealth
* There is a firm and solemn intention to stay together, to be chaste, the marriage being fortified and resilient
* There is a firm and solemn intention to not be lustful, meaning that it is not intentionally terminated to begin another such relationship which shall also be terminated for the purpose of getting sex
* The relationship is entirely in the open and known to all. Under no circumstances shall there be secrecy in relationship. The permission of guardians is required in relevant cases. There shall be no confusion as to who is s3x0rz1ng whom.

Upon fulfillment of these conditions, this is a valid nikah. There is no contract involved but Allah is the witness to it all and there is no secrecy either, this is what nullifies the need for a contract in the first place. All other quranic clauses requiring contract can require a degree of privacy/necessary secrecy (debts, criminal matters, inheritance, orphans, etc) but this must explicitly be in the open. However if such a couple is to divorce, then there shall be a contract, because there is a limit on how many times a couple can get together and divorce and also that there is a waiting period, and inheritance matters, etc.



Quranically there is NO QUESTION of "unmarried" individuals getting together as there is no legitimacy herein. Man cheats on wife, mistress does not know about wife, this cannot happen. Sex outside marriage is illegal entirely. What the punishment is depends whether it is classed as Zina.


There is nothing complicated or furious or hassling about marrying someone quranically. A simple "here's some money, will you be mine" is marriage under the sight of the Supreme Witness. No 2 year engagement, no five hundred wedding invites, no "let's save up money for a deposit on a house", no ?100,000 wedding full of people you will never see again, no blah blah blah blah, no bullshit. IS THIS NOT PRECISELY WHY YOU DID NOT WANT TO MARRY IN THE FIRST PLACE, TO AVOID THE CULTURAL BULLSHIT?

However to divorce, is complicated and rightfully so for to be any simpler would bring injustice and God is not unjust in the least.


Get together for the sake of being with the person (chastity), not for the sake of sex/being in a relationship (lust)



Essentially... bang whoever the hell you damn please. Just don't break apart willy nilly, join with the intention of not being together permanently, or be assholes to each other and be wholesome and legitimate and secure about it, a volatile relationship is invalid to begin with. I feel totally at peace with this understanding. It is not that sex before marriage is legal or anything, it is much more like the concept of marriage as we understand "marriage" was never in the quran in the first place, a total sham, a total fiction. What the quran sanctions is explicit wholesome open relationship between two consenting beings with zero room for any possible unpeace.

You described marriage as per God's law very well.