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

[Hoppean]

You are right.
That could well be the problem. But i have not seen any strong Quranic refutaions yet. Could you provide Quranic support for why sex with MMA should be haram when it is permissble for us to unguard our privates to them like we unguard them to our spouses?.....
If there was like a verse that said that sex is exclusive to marriage or if there was no MMA in 23:5-6 then that would work. But UNLESS we as the readers don't automatically assume that sex is exclusive to marriages, this won't work. And I don't see how we can be justified in assuming this.

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.           

[nimnimak_11]

Peace Sarah

MMA is a limited category.. to me it indicates right hands posses someone you have control of, someone under your care. i.e. such as orphans/widows.

No this is wrong. Are you talking about verse 4:25?

Muhsinat is a preference over mma, if you can’t marry muhsinat then marry an MMA. Not marry muhsinat from MMA. It is illogical because muhsinat are independent, mma are not. Get me? We take mma as someone we have an oath but i believe it’s more than this.
Find me the verse that says muhsinat need to first be MMA, maybe I’m looking at the wrong place.

Before I quote the verse i just want to point out that i'm not sure what MMA is but with some specifications given with respect to them in the scripture i currently think it has to be some sort of relationship. How slack (just an agreement) or how serious (engagement) a relationship this might be is something to be found out after we clear up the idea that sex with MMA is halal or haram.

In 4:23 the list of women that are haram to men in marriage is given. In 4:24 muhsinat are included in that list and it is said unless they come from MMA. Meaning that in order to marry muhsinat, they must first come from MMA. Here are the verses:

4:23   Forbidden for you are your mothers, and your daughters, and your sisters, and the sisters of your father, and the sisters of your mother, and the daughters of your brother, and the daughters of your sister, and your foster mothers who suckled you, and your sisters from suckling, and the mothers of your women, and your step-daughters who are in your lodgings from your women with whom you have already consummated the marriage; if you have not consummated the marriage then there is no sin upon you; and those who were in wedlock with your sons who are from your seed, and that you join between two sisters except what has already been done. God is Forgiving, Merciful.
4:24   And the muhsinat, except those maintained by your oaths

An MMA can be anyone who isn’t independent someone under someone’s care.  But I think the category is even smaller than that. But anyway if someone is under my care they’re my mma, maybe you choose to marry that person, and verse 4:25 proves that person needs permission from the ahl to marry that mma.

Right. Consider 4:23-24. Does this not convey that muhsinat must first become your MMA in order to be able to marry them? Also the other category given are fatayat and not MMA but it says of the fatayat who are your MMA which i take to mean that in order to marry the fatayat they must also become your MMA first.

From my reading MMA doesn’t = a gf/bf type relationships

It might be that it's not. But consider the above. What else could it be implying?

MMA’s arent in the prohibited boundaries of marriage right? so when the verses says protect your frj from azwaj or mma. Well basically it’s saying protect your secret affairs with these people.

I'm not sure I understand you here. What do you mean by "MMA arent in the prohibited boundaries of marriage" Also personally i think that for f-r-j to mean personal affairs is a long stretch. How did you get to that? I just had a look at the root of f-r-j and i'm not sure. Is there another verse in AQ that you came across where f-r-j meant that?

If you marry an mma well than you could have sex with them. IF you marry them so then the frj could mean sex provided you do nikkah with them. Why I say this?

33:50 makes it clear we can marry/nikkah with MMA. MMA aren’t automatically married to us
24:33 MMA’s can’t be coerced to nikkah
4:25 if you want a relationship WITH an MMA you need permission.

I agree on MMA not being automatically married and that marriage with MMA is doable. But i don't agree with having to request permission when it comes to MMA. That permission is only for the fatayat.

sex isn't an automatic given

I don't think AQ would have expected us to automatically assume that sex is exclusive to marriages. But what it does do is clearly limit it to two groups. Azwaaj and MMA. 

Also

Read this verse:

33:55 (Asad) [However,] it is no sin for them  [to appear freely] before their fathers, or their sons, or their brothers, or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their womenfolk, or such [male slaves] as their right hands may possess. But [always, O wives of the Prophet,]  remain conscious of God - for, behold, God is witness unto everything.

The idea of appearing freely, relaxed in dress code in front of their bros etc is the same with MMA. It gives indication it’s not about sex or sexual connotations. For me this is a stronger opinion in regards to mma not being oath partners with allowance of sexual relations because you wouldn’t do that with your brother! Or your sister! 

I know
But i think you missed something. Let me quote a similar verse 24:31
And tell the believing females to lower their gaze and keep covered their private parts, and that they should not reveal their beauty except what is apparent, and let them put forth their shawls over their cleavage. And let them not reveal their beauty except to their husbands, or their fathers, or fathers of their husbands, or their sons, or the sons of their husbands, or their brothers, or the sons of their brothers, or the sons of their sisters, or their women, or MMA, or the male servants who are without need, or the child who has not yet understood the composition of women. And let them not strike with their feet in a manner that reveals what they are keeping hidden of their beauty. And repent to God, all of you believers, that you may succeed.

Here the women can relax the code in front of their husbands and their MMA and their fathers and so on. Obviously this does not = sex with them. But it would mean that sex is a no to everyone including in marriage as there would be nothing in the Quran that says  it's ok to have sex with spouse!:& unless we automatically assume that sex is ok in marriage) However there is 23:5-6 which state two cateogries in which the unguarding of the private parts is acceptable. To all else (including father, sister and so on) the unguarding of the private parts is haram. Do you see where i'm coming from?

[nimnimak_11]

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.           

This is a long post. It may benefit you. I hope it reminds.

Firstly
The arguments you've put up have been answered. If you want further discussion on those points, point to the answers, fault them and then we might discuss them. I think that it is better in the sight of God to discuss peacefully or leave peacefully then to provoke people by accusing them as kafirs for one belief. JUST THINK ON THIS FROM A MORAL POINT OF VIEW.

NO, what matters is what our Lord tells us,

Ok heres the long part of the post. Read it all before making judgements.

How do you plan on figuring out what God is telling you without the use of the faculties he has given you? Say you thought the Quran told you to go and beat women (it does not say this but this is an example. Perhaps you may hear) Your heart and reasoning tell you not to. What do you do? What's more likely? That your interpretation of the scripture is wrong or your heart and reason? Your heart and reason and logic will hopefully guide you to the truth of the Quran. But if you ignore and focus ONLY on your interpretation or of anothers, you may never reach the truth of the true interpretation. You would not have acknowledged, you would have blindly followed. Similar to idol-worshipers (please note that i am not calling you this) they blindly followed.
   
There are somethings such as the forbidding of swine which may not make sense to the reason. But it does not go against the heart as you are not harming anyone else. So considering the strength of the likelyhood of the accuracy of the interpretation that swine is haram with respect to the LITTLE problem it would cause when reasoning out, you don't have swine.

Now think about the lashing for Zina. Think about how understandings have changed even though they looked like they could not. Some recieved a lashing of the sort that was actually not prescribed by the Quran. Some understand the lashing as meant to not hurt physically and as purely a humiliating punishment. But people back then who thought they had interpreted it right decided that they should ignore their heart and reason because they thought they had the right interpretation whereas most likely they did not. They though their interpretation is what God is telling them forgetting that the heart and reason are from God.

How would they justify themselves in the sight of GOD?
Would the justification be greatly different to a suicide bomber who kills innocents? Both justifications would be something like: I though that ALLAH the most holy lord condoned this. That is what I understood from the Quran. So if it's asked of them why did you ignore your heart and reason....they would be in trouble then. Clearly.

Whereas those who give more value to their heart and reason then their interpretation, and thus are much less likely to commit acts such as suicide or lashing, would be better able to justify themselves in the sight of God. If it says lash in the Quran and they had refused, they could justify themselves with: Although it seemed pretty clear in the Quran, it was also clear in my heart and reason that this is wrong. As you gave me heart and reason, i concluded most likely that i or others have misinterpreted the Quran and thus i did not lash because of the heart and reason you gave me told me not to.

Which group sound more kafir to you?
Think on this. How else do you expect to get to the truth without requesting guidance and thinking about what the truth could be?

Also don't be so insulting to some others (me included) Did it not cross your mind that you may be wrong about them?

[SarahY]

Peace Nima

Right. Consider 4:23-24. Does this not convey that muhsinat must first become your MMA in order to be able to marry them? Also the other category given are fatayat and not MMA but it says of the fatayat who are your MMA which i take to mean that in order to marry the fatayat they must also become your MMA first.

Nope, I don’t think so I haven’t looked to deep into it so I really shouldn’t comment. I’ll tell you my thoughts even though I don’t feel confident about it.. so excuse the ignorance.

muhsinat can also be translated as “married women”. You can’t marry married women except that she is under your oath, as in except if she’s married to you. Remember Quran came through a time where people were already married. 

The question of mma isn’t really the issue the question is who are the muhsinat or what is muhsinat..

Mma can be taken differently. Except in this case who is mma to you would be your wife already...

Right. Consider 4:23-24. Does this not convey that muhsinat must first become your MMA in order to be able to marry them? Also the other category given are fatayat and not MMA but it says of the fatayat who are your MMA which i take to mean that in order to marry the fatayat they must also become your MMA first.

I don’t think so.

It might be that it's not. But consider the above. What else could it be implying?

Read all occurrences of MMA and tell me how you understand mma. Try do it without any thought of proving mma means partner because clearly verses 24:33 and 4:25 doesn’t prove it.

Try doing it or even try proving mma is a relationship of how you think it is. If you can’t in all occurrences then obviously there is something wrong. It’s better to do research without a concluding thought otherwise our bias is steered.

I'm not sure I understand you here. What do you mean by "MMA arent in the prohibited boundaries of marriage" Also personally i think that for f-r-j to mean personal affairs is a long stretch. How did you get to that? I just had a look at the root of f-r-j and i'm not sure. Is there another verse in AQ that you came across where f-r-j meant that?

Meaning they are permissible to marry see 33:50 we are allowed to marry from the mma, they are halal for us to seek marriage. They are not halal for us to have for fun. Read 24:33.

Maybe it’s a long stretch but I was putting an interpretation on it. Doesn’t mean it is true. Frj indicates an opening or sexual organs so protecting an opening, I spun my opinion on it, doesn’t mean it’s right.

And if frj is only going to be taken as protection from sex than fine let’s take that argument.  YOU CAN HAVE SEX WITH MMA. The ONLY time you can have sex with mma is if you do nikkah with them. Without nikkah no sex with mma. So yes you can have sex with mma but not without nikkah.

I’m convinced you’re prob not. Keep researching and share your findings. I’m done for now

Salam.

[progressive1993]

And if frj is only going to be taken as protection from sex than fine let?s take that argument.  YOU CAN HAVE SEX WITH MMA. The ONLY time you can have sex with mma is if you do nikkah with them. Without nikkah no sex with mma. So yes you can have sex with mma but not without nikkah.

Not so, according to 23:5-6. It is also important to note the "or" in their, showing that one can't have both a spouse/spouses and an MMA/MMAs at the same time, which would be adultery/"zina".

[SarahY]

Peace progressive, all.

what do you understand from 23:5-6 and even that be the case,  i wasn't talking about THAT though i'm not sure i agree with you.

you can have sex with mma when you do nikkah with them what evidence do you have contrary to this? and is your information in synch with other verses in relation to mma?

the problem with this whole analogy/interpretation is the understanding of mma, muhsinat and frj (in particular the ones in bold).

when enough evidence is put forward about these terms in relation to all occurrences then i think we can have a better discussion but if we wanna take strawmans theory and pick on choose things we'll be here for ever.

Salam.

[progressive1993]

what do you understand from 23:5-6 and even that be the case,  i wasn't talking about THAT though i'm not sure i agree with you.

I don't really understand the above.. Please phrase it more clearly.

you can have sex with mma when you do nikkah with them what evidence do you have contrary to this? and is your information in synch with other verses in relation to mma?

I cited 23:5-6, showing my position. What is the evidence for your position on sex with MMAs only being allowed during marriage? 23:5-6 suggests otherwise.

[SarahY]

I don?t agree with you, my argument wasn?t about that verse. If that?s the only verse you got in relation to mma being ok for sex (without nikkah) then I believe your claim is weak.

Sex with mma is ok with nikkah, see verse 4:25. Actually I just read asads notes, read:

Lit., "or those whom their right hands possess" (aw ma malakat aymanuhum). Many of the commentators assume unquestioningly that this relates to female slaves, and that the particle aw ("or") denotes a permissible alternative. This interpretation is, in my opinion, inadmissible inasmuch as it is based on the assumption that sexual intercourse with ones female slave is permitted without marriage: an assumption, which is contradicted by the Qur?an itself (see 4:3, 24, 25 and 24:32, with the corresponding notes). Nor is this the only objection to the above-mentioned interpretation. Since the Qur?an applies the term ??believers" to men and women alike, and since the term azwaj ("spouses"), too, denotes both the male and the female partners in marriage, there is no reason for attributing to the phrase ma malakat aymanuhum the meaning of "their female slaves??; and since, on the other hand, it is out of the question that female and male slaves could have been referred to here it is obvious that this phrase does not relate to slaves at all, but has the same meaning as in 4:24 - namely, "those whom they rightfully possess through wedlock (see note 26 on 4:24) - with the significant difference that in the present context this expression relates to both husbands and wives, who "rightfully possess" one another by virtue of marriage. On the basis of this interpretation, the particle aw which precedes this clause does not denote an alternative ("or") but is, rather, in the nature of an explanatory amplification, more or less analogous to the phrase "in other words" or "that is", thus giving to the whole sentence the meaning, "save with their spouses - that is, those whom they rightfully possess [through wedlock]", etc. (Cf. a similar construction 25:62 - ??for him who has the will to take thought -that is [lit., "or"], has the will to be grateful".)(Quran Ref: 23:6 )

[nimnimak_11]

Peace Nima

Nope, I don’t think so I haven’t looked to deep into it so I really shouldn’t comment. I’ll tell you my thoughts even though I don’t feel confident about it.. so excuse the ignorance.

muhsinat can also be translated as “married women”. You can’t marry married women except that she is under your oath, as in except if she’s married to you. Remember Quran came through a time where people were already married. 

The question of mma isn’t really the issue the question is who are the muhsinat or what is muhsinat..

Mma can be taken differently. Except in this case who is mma to you would be your wife already...

I don’t think so.

Read all occurrences of MMA and tell me how you understand mma. Try do it without any thought of proving mma means partner because clearly verses 24:33 and 4:25 doesn’t prove it.

Try doing it or even try proving mma is a relationship of how you think it is. If you can’t in all occurrences then obviously there is something wrong. It’s better to do research without a concluding thought otherwise our bias is steered.

Meaning they are permissible to marry see 33:50 we are allowed to marry from the mma, they are halal for us to seek marriage. They are not halal for us to have for fun. Read 24:33.

Maybe it’s a long stretch but I was putting an interpretation on it. Doesn’t mean it is true. Frj indicates an opening or sexual organs so protecting an opening, I spun my opinion on it, doesn’t mean it’s right.

And if frj is only going to be taken as protection from sex than fine let’s take that argument.  YOU CAN HAVE SEX WITH MMA. The ONLY time you can have sex with mma is if you do nikkah with them. Without nikkah no sex with mma. So yes you can have sex with mma but not without nikkah.

I’m convinced you’re prob not. Keep researching and share your findings. I’m done for now

Salam.

Salam Sarah

I looked before at every occurence of right hands using globalquran but i've done it again and the more I look at it, the more this implies a serious realtionnship. You do the same without any preconcieved notion of MMA. What could it be? Even if we were to understand MMA to mean different things still in some places, MMA stands out as someone who your in a strong relationship with.

I'l quote some verses:

4:3]
If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or MMA, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice.

Look at the above, what is a good solution in place of a wife to help look after orphans? Possibly a nanny right? Ok but then but what nanny would the private parts be exclusive to that is not exclusive to one's father, sister and everyone else except azwaaj?

[4:24]
Also (prohibited are[based on 4:23]) women already married, except MMA.

[4:25] If any of you have not the means wherewith to wed musinat, they may wed fatayat from your MMA (i could have translated the last part wrong. I'm just trying to put MMA in place of the english used)

The above says IF you can't marry muhsinat (suggesting it's better to marry muhsinat) then marry fatayat who are your MMA. Bear in mind that to marry muhsinat they must still come from MMA.

[23:6]
Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or whom their right hands possess,- for (in their case) they are free from blame.
Wouldn't someone whom your in a relationship best fit the above?

Note that it dosn't say that these MMA have to be married. If MMA are to be married then they become spouse. MMA is mentioned as a category of it's own and spouse is mentioned of a category of it's own.


33:50 O prophet, We have made lawful for you the wives to whom you have already given their dowries, and those who are maintained by your oath.....

70:29    And those who guard their private parts.
70:30   Except around their spouses or those maintained by their oaths, there is no blame.

Only MMA and Spouses are exclusive to the private parts.

I'm gonna have a try at refuting one of your key arguments. See what you think:

Ok. Your understanding is that sex is not allowed unless Quran makes it allowed right? I argue nothing is haram unless given or ruled out in someway. For example i think for one to sit down and let's say play 6 hours of playstation nonstop is a transgression (this is clear) and thus forbidden. Now with sex one would have to personally automatically assume that sex is a transgression if the nikah contract is not in place. Thus one would automatically assume that sex with MMA would fall under transgression even if it is done in the best of conditions (loving relationship) or fahsha and thus in ONLY That way would sex be exclusive to marriages IMO. The question is wether we should judge like this considering all verses related to MMA and their relations and similarities to spouses. Also i don't see how an impartial person would automatically assume sex in a loving, commiting relationship without the papers proving nikah to be a fahsha or transgression.

Ambiguity would occure in verses like 23:5-6 and 24:31. In 24:31 relaxing of the dress code is mentioned in front of those specified. In 23:5-6 the private parts are allowed to be unguarded. What could the private parts being unguarded mean? Is it only a matter of exposure or somthing more? Remember MMA are mentioned alongside spouses here so in someways surely MMA must bear some relation to a spouse right?

Oh just one more thing, how does 24:33 and 4:25 reject MMA as like a gf/bf or something on those lines?

[noshield30]

Hey can I just ask while were talking about this.. is it true that the quran only states the punishment for infidelity in marriage (which is prison/100 lashes) but doesnt really state any punishment for sex outside of marriage? And also the quran has made it pretty clear that fornication is frowned upon as far as quran is concerned, so isnt sex outside marriage considered fornication? If not, how? And also it does seem like the people 'whom your right hand possesses' are people who has given you their trust, or consent(bf/gf) just by reading the ayah (it might been taken out of context i dont know but just reading it would make me understand it that way) but growing up my teachers taught me that the people referred to were slaves, which dont exist anymore in the modern world. But I've always taught why would you be allowed to have sex with slaves but not people ur in a relationship with?? Doesnt make sense!