-
Surah Mu'minun 23:5-7
The implication is that ascetism is not what is demanded. Sexual relations with the wife are absolutely permitted. However, except for her, these relations are absolutely prohibited if they are in the form of adultery, temporary marriage (muta‘), sodomy or bestiality. They cannot be expected from a Muslim. Yet it should remain clear that there is no possibility in the words of the verse to interpret them as referring to masturbation and other similar acts. They are confined to sexual relations with another individual and cannot relate to self-gratification in this regard. The reason for this is that the preposition عَلَي (on/upon) does not collocate with حَافِظُوْن (those who guard) and thus there necessarily exists a tadmin in this expression, and words such as عن الوقوع علي أحد (from indulging with anyone) are suppressed after حَافِظُوْن. Thus, the object from which the exception is sought in this expression is not the ways of sexual-gratification: it is the individuals with whom a person can establish sexual relations. The verse does not mean that no way of sexual-gratification is allowed except through wives and slave-women; it means that except for wives and slave-women, one cannot appease one’s sexual urge with any other individual.
It makes sense that a tadmin exists. But what is the evidence that the tadmin is ‘alaa an waqu’i ‘ala ahadin? Why not ‘alaa an takshufuu ‘alaa ahad (that you uncover them on someone)? Because perhaps slaves would help their masters to get undressed etc. What is the evidence that the tadmin here is to do with the actual intimate relation? Rather it seems that the word zina or lamas or tubashir is not used- so why assume its to do with that whereas it seems to only refer to guarding the modesty.
-
10 Replies
-
Surah Mu'minun 23:5-7
updated 3 years, 1 month ago
4 Members
·
10
Replies
-
It implies complete sexual action. We have no strong context to limit it’s scope. The other acts you mentioned are prohibited as sadd zariya, which lead to zina.
-
But the refernce is to furuj. What evidence is there to say that furuj is being used in a slightly metaphorical way to refer to them as being used in the intimate relation? Or why is it incorrect to take the meaning that the literal showing of furuj is being described here?
-
In case it helps, @Umer Qureshi provided this explanation in one of my threads.
“The actual prohibition in Islam is that of Zina and Quran makes it very clear, which involves an act of copulation between a male and a female out of a wedlock. This definition of Zina is universal. Therefore, when Quran is asking for protection of one’s private parts, it is talking about protecting them from Zina (which Quran has emphasized on so many other places), and this view gets further solidified that later exceptions mentioned by Quran are with other individuals which, points to the fact that previous protection was also with individuals (of whose linguistics we already discussed above). Hence, it is linguistically flawed to assume that out of no where in the context of Zina, Quran should mention masturbation unnecessarily. The relevant exceptions should be with people with whom it is allowed.
Also, we never use the term sexual relationship with oneself in any language, it is again a linguistic fallacy. Therefore, we should not add a meaning just because our pre-conceived notions were of actual ‘Hurmat’ of Masturbation.”
-
-
Could someone explain a bit clearer about my latest reply why a different tadmin couldnt be constructed here?
-
Qur’an 23:5
وَالَّذِينَ هُمْ لِفُرُوجِهِمْ حَافِظُونَ
Yusuf Ali: Who abstain from sex,
اور جو اپنی شرم گاہوں کی حفاظت کرنے والے ہیں
Qur’an 23:6.
إِلَّا عَلَىٰ أَزْوَاجِهِمْ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُمْ فَإِنَّهُمْ غَيْرُ مَلُومِينَ
Yusuf Ali: Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (in their case) they are free from blame,
مگر اپنی بیویوں یا لونڈیوں پر اس لیے کہ ان میں کوئی الزام نہیں
Qur’an 23:7
فَمَنِ ابْتَغَىٰ وَرَاءَ ذَٰلِكَ فَأُولَـٰئِكَ هُمُ الْعَادُونَ
Yusuf Ali: But those whose desires exceed those limits are transgressors;-
پس جو شخص اس کے علاوہ طلب گار ہو تو وہی حد سے نکلنے والے ہیں
Verse # 7 clarifies that here the word “furuj” is being referred to sexual relationship and NOT in literal sense as just showing the furuj. Desire to have sex makes more sense in this verse than to just showing the furuj.
-
That is a very good argument. Thank you
-
So, the point is that because of the word “desire”, it makes more sense that sex is being referred to as opposed to showing the private parts alone?
-
Yes
-
I see. Thanks for the clarification!
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
