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

[Mazhar]

I am strongly of the belief that if members of this forum had a greater bearing on the Arabic language, then this thread would not have stretched to 70 pages.

زنى

For convenience the entry in Classical Lexicons can be seen here.

http://www.baheth.info/all.jsp?term=زنى

Cut the Arabic word and paste it there. It will open the page.

[Mazhar]

Lane is here:

1 زَنَى  , aor. يَزْنِى, inf. n. زِنًى [often written زِنًا] and زِنَآءٌ, (S, Mgh, * Msb, K,) the latter an inf. n. of 3 (S, Mgh, Msb, K) also, (S, Mgh, K,) but said by some to be a dial. var. of the former, (Msb,) the former being of the dial. of the people of El-Hijáz, (Lh, S, Msb, TA,) and the latter of the dial. of Benoo-Temeem, (Lh, TA,) or of the people of Nejd, (S, Msb, TA,) He committed fornication or adultery; (El-Munáwee, Er-Rághib, TA;) بِهَا with her: (MA:) but accord. to El-Munáwee, [it seems to be properly a dial. var. of زَنَأَ as meaning he mounted; for he says that,] in the proper language of the Arabs, الزِّنَا signifies the mounting upon a thing; and in the language of the law it signifies the commission of the act first mentioned above: it is [thus] syn. with فَجَرَ: and in like manner one says of a woman [زَنَتْ]: (TA:) ↓ زنّى , inf. n. تَزْنِيَةٌ, also signifies the same: (TA:) and so does ↓ زانى , inf. n. مُزَانَاةٌ and زِنَآءٌ: (K:) one says of a woman, ↓ تُزَانِى , inf. n. مُزَانَاةٌ and زِنَآءٌ, meaning تُبَاغِى [i. e. She commits fornication or adultery; or prostitutes herself]. (S.) It is said in a prov., لَا حُصْنُهَا حُصْنٌ وَلَا الزِّنَآءُ زِنَآءٌ [Her continence is not continence, nor the fornication, or adultery, that she commits, fornication, or adultery]: applied to him who does not remain in one state, or condition; neither in good nor in evil: (Meyd:) or to him who refrains from doing good and then is excessive [therein], or from evil and then is excessive therein; not continuing to pursue one way. (TA.) [See also زَنْيَةٌ.] 2 زنّاهُ ذ , inf. n. تَزْنِيَةٌ, (S, Mgh, Msb, TA,) He said to him يَا زَانِى [O fornicator or adulterer]: (S, TA:) or he imputed to him الزِّنَا [i. e. fornication or adultery]; (Mgh, Msb, TA;) and so ↓ زاناهُ , accord. to the copies of the K; but in the M, ↓ ازناهُ , which, it is there said, has not been heard except in a trad. of the daughter of El- Hasan. (TA.) -A2- See also 1. -A3- And see 2 in art. زنو. 3 زَانَاهَا ذ , inf. n. مُزَانَاةٌ and زِنَآءٌ, [He committed fornication or adultery with her.] (Mgh, Msb.) ― -b2- See also 1, in two places. -A2- And see 2. 4 أَزْنَىَ see 2. زِنًى ذ , often written زِنًا: see the next paragraph, in two places. زَنْيَةٌ ذ A single act of الزِّنَى [i. e. fornication or adultery]: (Msb, TA:) and ↓ زِنًى is [used in the same sense, (though properly an inf. n., not of un.,) as is shown by its being] dualized: they say زِنَيَانِ: (TA:) [but this is post-classical:] thus using the dual of زِنًى, the lawyers say, قَذَفَهُ بِزِنَيَيْنِ [He reproached him with two acts of fornication or adultery]: (Msb, TA:) but [in this instance, and] in the saying ↓ شَهِدَ عَلَى زِنَاءَيْنِ , [which is dual of زِنَآءٌ, properly an inf. n. like زِنًى,] or زِنَيَيْنِ, [He testified, or gave decisive information, respecting two acts of fornication or adultery,] the right word is زَنْيَتَيْنِ. (Mgh.) One says also, هُوَ ابْنُ زَنْيَةٍ, and sometimes ↓ زِنْيَةٍ , (K,) but the former is the more chaste, (Az, TA,) meaning ↓ ابْنُ زِنًى [i. e. He is a son of fornication or adultery]: (K:) or هُوَ وَلَدُ زَنْيَةٍ and ↓ زِنْيَةٍ , (Mgh, Msb,) and لِزَنْيَةٍ [هُوَ] and ↓ لِزِنْيَةٍ , (Mgh,) with fet-h and with kesr, [meaning as above, or وُلِدَ لِزَنْيَةٍ He is, or was, born of fornication or adultery,] contr. of وَلَدُ رِشْدَةٍ and لِرِشْدَةٍ, (Mgh,) or contr. of هُوَ لِرِشْدَةٍ: (Msb:) or ↓ هُوَ لِزِنْيَةٍ and لِزَنْيَةٍ, [He is the offspring of fornication or adultery,] contr. of لِرِشْدَةٍ and لِرَشْدَةٍ: (S:) accord. to Fr, one says, هُوَ لِغَيِّةٍ and لِزَنْيَةٍ and لِغَيْرِ رَشْدَةٍ, [all meaning the same, and] all with fet-h: accord. to Ks, however, one may say ↓ زِنْيَة and رِشْدَة, with kesr, but غَيَّة only with fet-h: (TA:) ISk says that زنية and غيّة are both with kesr and fet-h. (Msb.) زِنْيَةٌ ذ [accord. to analogy signifies A mode, or manner, of fornication or adultery]. See the next preceding paragraph, in five places. -A2- Also The last of a man's children; (K;) like as فِجْرَةٌ signifies the “ last of a woman's children. ” (TA.) زِنَآءٌ ذ [properly an inf. n., but having a dual assigned to it]: see an instance of its dual voce زَنْيَةٌ زِنَوِىٌّ ذ [meaning Of, or relating to, fornication or adultery] is the rel. n. from زِنًى; (S, Msb;) the [radical] ى being changed into و because three ىs are deemed difficult of pronunciation: (Msb:) and the rel. n. from زِنَآءٌ [having the same meaning] is ↓ زِنَآئِىٌّ . (S.) زِنَائِىٌّ ذ : see what next precedes. زَنَّآءَةٌ ذ an appellation applied to A female ape (قِرْدَةٌ). (S.) زَانٍ ذ act. part. n. of زَنَى: [signifying Committing fornication or adultery: and also a fornicator or an adulterer:] (Msb:) fem. زَانِيَةٌ: (Kur xxiv. 2 and 3:) pl. masc. زُنَاةٌ, like قُضَاةٌ pl. of قَاضٍ: (Msb:) [and pl. fem. زَوَانٍ.] يَا زَانِى said to a woman is correct as being [for يَا زَانِيَةُ, O fornicatress, or adulteress,] apocopated. (Mgh.) زَانِيَةٌ ذ fem. of زَانٍ [q. v.] ― -b2- Applied to a man, it has an intensive meaning [i. e. One much addicted to fornication or adultery]. (Mgh.)

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text;jsessionid=BD548AF4D68498C98DEAA004FD78C81E?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2002.02.0025%3Aroot%3DznY

[nimnimak_11]

Peace all,

I am strongly of the belief that if members of this forum had a greater bearing on the Arabic language, then this thread would not have stretched to 70 pages.

Zinaa is any act of intercourse with someone to whom one is not married.

Adultery is purely incidental to the act of zinaa.

There is no word for adultery in Arabic.

It is this latter reason why Edward Lane listed "adultery" as an entry for zinaa, because it is purely incidental to the act of zinaa.

To confirm my above statements (for those who can read and understand Arabic) members are urged to refer to the entry of zinaa under the root Z-N-Y, both in Taaj Al-3aroos by Muhammad Al-Murtadhaa Al-Zabeedi, and in Lisaan Al-3arab by Jamaludeen Bin Manzoor.

I am prepared to translate the entire entry of Z-N-Y from both books if members would care for such an endeavour, I only say this because there are some significant omissions in Lane's lexicon as regards the use of this hotly debated word.

Peace uq

If the Quran's usage of zina is with regards to any sexual act outside of marriage then you are right. But when I looked at lane and the Quran, I did not get this impression. If I am wrong please correct me.
 
I've looked at lane before and from what I understand, zina can have different meanings am I correct?

The following are the meanings that are most relevant to sex:
1) Adultery (sex outside of marriage)
2) Fornication (sex without a marriage certificate)
3) To mount upon a thing (I think this refers to sexual activity)

1), 2) and 3) are different things.
The Quran when discussing the punishment of zina, must be dealing with one of these things since it only specifies one punishment (as pointed out by bigmo) It is surely not the case that the Quran would assign the same level/type of punishment for three different things that are of differing moral standing. Thus the Quran must be referring to one of those three. This must be adultery.

Your suggestion is that

Adultery is purely incidental to the act of zinaa.

If that is the case, then can it not be said that fornication, adultery and to mount upon a thing are all incidental to the act of zina and thus one should not mount upon their wives?

My point is that when were are faced with three differing things and are given guidelines for only one of these three differing things, the evidence is strongly in favour that the word that is being used is only being used with one meaning in mind. So if zina means adultery or fornication or to mount upon a thing, we should look at what the Quran is trying to convey with its usage of zina.

Siki suggests that zina is an illegal mounting upon a thing since if it was the case that mounting upon a thing was punishable with 100 lashes, then married couples would be punishable for engaging in sex.

What's your take on these points?

 

[Wakas]

bigmo,

I forgot to add another one:

5) Quran does not clarify/distinguish the situation when proven zina is done by a married person with an unmarried person, i.e. if the punishments differ, as you claim, it does not clarify/distinguish

Points 4 and 5 are significant, because they imply your view does not exist in Quran. The only way out is to say Quran omits this info and we are left to work it out ourselves - how convenient.

[nimnimak_11]

Peace Wakas

5) Quran does not clarify/distinguish the situation when proven zina is done by a married person with an unmarried person, i.e. if the punishments differ, as you claim, it does not clarify/distinguish

If it can be established that zina = adultery (and it can IMO based on Quranic evidence and Aql) then it becomes the case that there is a clear distinction. You punish the adulterer with 100 lashes but not the unmarried. This is because the unmarried cannot commit zina without being married. It may be the case that you punish the unmarried on the grounds of lewdness but not on the grounds of zina. That only happens to the adulterer and adulteress.

That is if it can be established that zina = adultery. Of course you will request Quranic evidence for why zina = adultery. The 70 pages of this thread have this. For your convenience, i've pointed out one of these proofs to you. You will find this in my last post to you.

Peace

[Wakas]

Nima,

I asked for your strongest point. You said:
 

First point (not the strongest, there are other equally strong points) But better to get them out of the way one by one.

Point 1:

At 23:5-6, we are told that we can un-guard our private parts to the zawj or the MMA. This implies that we can have sex with the zawj or the MMA. If it does not imply this, then defend yourself by explaining what you understand of this. If there is implication of being able to have sex with the MMA, then there is proof that zina does not mean fornication.

Firstly, you have assumed without presenting evidence that unguard their "furooj" means sex. Your so-called "strong point" has an in-built flaw from the get-go. Please note that nowhere in Quran does it use unguard their/your "furooj" to mean sex or sexual touching/activity, it uses other words, e.g. see 2:187 and others. You would have to prove your implied meaning first.

Secondly, see Asad's notes:

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".)

Not that I necessarily agree with them on the "aw" (or) aspect.

Thirdly, let us see Quran says about MMA and if sex is permissible with them or not:

And whoever of you cannot afford to marry the independent believing women, then from those MMA of the believing maidens. God is more aware of your faith, you are to each other (i.e. equal). You shall marry them with the permission of their guardians and give them their dowries in kindness; they should be chaste not those who commit immorality/lewdness** and not those who take (secret) lovers. Then when they become protected/married, then any of them who comes with immorality/lewdness/indecency shall have half the punishment of what is for the independent women. This is for those who fear hardship from among you. But if you are patient it is better for you, and God is Forgiver, Merciful. [4:25]
*bold and underline is feminine plural.

Also see 4:24 when similar phrasing is used for men seeking marriage: ".....(desiring) to be protected/married, not to be immoral/lewd/indecent**..." - masculine plural.

And for believers who wish to marry believing women of the book/decree see 5:5 "...being protected/married not being lewd/immoral/lewd** and not ones who take (secret) lovers...." - masculine plural.

**Siin-Fa-Ha = from PRL: musafihun - one who commits fornication or adultery


If you disagree, let us all see how you twist these terms. Over to you, to defend your so-called "strong point" or will you admit you are likely wrong?

[Wakas]

I also just noticed something:

"...then any of them who comes with immorality/lewdness/indecency (Arabic "fahisha", root: Fa-Ha-Shiin) shall have half the punishment of what is for the independent women. ..." [4:25]

This is significant because it uses the term "fahisha" and if those who think "zina" means "adultery" only, thus think the unmarried person would be tried under "fahisha" laws, then they will have to explain what half is.

  This should be interesting. Please let us know bigmo, nima, emil, others who have this view.

And in case this is not obvious, I am referring to this situation: sex in front of 4 witnesses between married person and unmarried person.

Please explain for all to see, or admit you are likely wrong.

[nimnimak_11]

Peace Wakas

I asked for your strongest point.

When there are equally strong points, I cannot give you my strongest point. I can only give you one of the equally strong points.

Over to you, to defend your so-called "strong point"

Thanks. I will defend one of my equally strong points where in which together, these points present a coherent solution to our notions of the MMA and the unguarding of the private parts (I think).

Firstly, you have assumed without presenting evidence that unguard their "furooj" means sex.

1)Are we in agreement that nothing is prohibited unless stated/implied by verses or Aql? If yes then Question 2...
2) What is the clearest restriction on sexual activity in the Quran? IMO 23:5-6 is one. Here evidently sexual activity is restricted to two categories since one cannot have sex without unguarding their private parts. There are also other explicit restrictions such as fahisha, zina, the waiting periods and 2:237. There are no other restrictions. AFAIK 

This means: That one can have sex with the MMA provided that they are doing so within those restrictions. If the Quran wanted to restrict sex to marriage, why would it allow us to unguard our private parts to the MMA? Why would the MMA and the zawj be the only exclusive category rather than the zawj alone?

Your objection might be that by using the term zina at 24:2-3, the Quran effectively rules out sex with anyone other than spouses.
My defence to this would be:
The following are the meanings of zina that are most relevant to sex:
1) Adultery (sex outside of marriage) 2) Fornication (sex without a marriage certificate) 3) To mount upon a thing
 
1), 2) and 3) are different things.
The Quran when discussing the punishment of zina, must be dealing with one of these things since it only specifies one punishment (as pointed out by bigmo) It is surely not the case that the Quran would assign the same level/type of punishment for three different things that are of differing moral standing. Thus the Quran must be referring to one of those three. This must be adultery (based on Aql)

It is your point that zina means two things at the same time (fornication and adultery). Why not three things at the same time? In other words why don't we just take zina as adultery, fornication and mounting upon a thing since adultery and fornication are incidental to mounting upon a thing. The issue with that is that this would imply that we lash a married couple 100 times every time we (more than 4 of us) find out that they are pregnant or have had sex.

You may respond that there are implications of sexual activity with the zawj. My response would be that there are implications of sexual activity with the MMA. This then just leaves adultery from the possible meanings of zina.

Secondly, see Asad's notes:

Not that I necessarily agree with them on the "aw" (or) aspect.

Earlier in the thread (around page 55ish I think) SarahY posted the exact same thing. I can repeat my defence but you have not explicitly said whether you acknolwledge Asad's POV. If you agree with him, let me know with which one of his points and I will point out what I believe are problems in his understanding.

And whoever of you cannot afford to marry the independent believing women, then from those MMA of the believing maidens. God is more aware of your faith, you are to each other (i.e. equal). You shall marry them with the permission of their guardians and give them their dowries in kindness; they should be chaste not those who commit immorality/lewdness** and not those who take (secret) lovers. Then when they become protected/married, then any of them who comes with immorality/lewdness/indecency shall have half the punishment of what is for the independent women. This is for those who fear hardship from among you. But if you are patient it is better for you, and God is Forgiver, Merciful. [4:25]
*bold and underline is feminine plural.

Also see 4:24 when similar phrasing is used for men seeking marriage: ".....(desiring) to be protected/married, not to be immoral/lewd/indecent**..." - masculine plural.

And for believers who wish to marry believing women of the book/decree see 5:5 "...being protected/married not being lewd/immoral/lewd** and not ones who take (secret) lovers...." - masculine plural.

**Siin-Fa-Ha = from PRL: musafihun - one who commits fornication or adultery

4:23-25. In short, from what has been discussed:

The muhsinat women are prohibted for marriage unless they are MMA. Thus we cannot marry the muhsinat unless they are/become MMA. Then we are told that permitted to us is what is beyond this. After this we are told that if we can't marry the believing muhsinat, then we marry from the believeing fatayat MMA. Implications of this is that it is recommended that we marry the mushinat but that if we can't then we marry the fatayat. Either way it appears that if we marry, we should marry MMA (Please note that I am discussing the occurrence of fatayat MMA in another thread and my view on this could changed based on that discussion)

Muhsinat and fatayat are obviously related. That which best connects the two are independent/dependent or protected/young.
As for those seeking to be muhsanatin and muhsineena, it depends on what you mean by chaste. I've understood it to mean independent since one important aspect of marriage is enhanced depth and breadth of independence. This also makes sense with regards to the fatayat seeking to be muhsineena or muhsanatin. They are dependent thus they become independent.
It also makes sense that you ask the permission of the parents of those who are dependent but not those who are independent.

As for

Siin-Fa-Ha

4:24-25 are verses about those intending to marry. Those who marry should desire/seek with their amwalikum to be muhsinina (independent) as opposed to just for sex. That is my take of 4:24-25

Thus whilst one can approach a relationship purely for sex, one cannot approach a marriage purely for sex as suggested by 4:24.

Peace

[nimnimak_11]

I also just noticed something:

"...then any of them who comes with immorality/lewdness/indecency (Arabic "fahisha", root: Fa-Ha-Shiin) shall have half the punishment of what is for the independent women. ..." [4:25]

This is significant because it uses the term "fahisha" and if those who think "zina" means "adultery" only, thus think the unmarried person would be tried under "fahisha" laws, then they will have to explain what half is.

  This should be interesting. Please let us know bigmo, nima, emil, others who have this view.

And in case this is not obvious, I am referring to this situation: sex in front of 4 witnesses between married person and unmarried person.

Please explain for all to see, or admit you are likely wrong.

It depends on whether you can prove the unmarried person as committing fahisha. If you can, then you punish them. If you can't, you don't punish them. If they are fatayat, you give them half the punishment. If they are muhsinat, you give them the full punishment. This applies to all cases of fahisha. Not just adultery (that is encompassed by fahisha).

Emphasis is on the bold. Has that answered your question?

[Bigmo]

bigmo,

I forgot to add another one:

5) Quran does not clarify/distinguish the situation when proven zina is done by a married person with an unmarried person, i.e. if the punishments differ, as you claim, it does not clarify/distinguish

Points 4 and 5 are significant, because they imply your view does not exist in Quran. The only way out is to say Quran omits this info and we are left to work it out ourselves - how convenient.

I have said before that the punishment for adultery in the Quran is symbolic, its not designed to be implimented as much as its designed to make a point of the magnitude of the sin. Its slandering the Quran designed for punishment since its four times easier for a slanderer to get punished than an adulterer. Like Moses when he ordered the Israelites to take their lives as a punishment for worshiping the calf. They of course couldn't and God forgave them. Its not practical to expect people to kill themsleves. But it symbolizes the magnitude of the sin in God's eyes. Its slandering the Quran was trying to eleminate by making it very hard for any person (even if he saw adultery) to open his mouth since he needs three witnesses.

Most people will lie to avoid being lashed anyways. People will easily swear they did not when facing the whip. God forgives those who proclaim their disbelief when being tortured so how can God expect an adulter not to lie to avoid being tormented. 100 lashes is not a joke. So the hypotheical scenario you brought up is not really relevant because it will never really be a legal issue for us to solve.