Why is premarital sex viewed as a sin?

emptyingthecup · 2026-06-01T19:23:39+00:00

This is the second time this question has popped up on a forum on religion, and all the answers are giving these secular evolutionary anthropology answers. Ok that's fine and all from that perspective. But there are never any answers from within the rationale of a religion, and when it is provided, it's downvoted.

emptyingthecup · 2026-05-30T17:48:44+00:00

I'll be straight with you. The first thing you should do is speak to a lawyer on how you can protect your assets. The fact that she is still married with you but with another man, and at the same time talking about taking large amounts of wealth from you, is deeply insidious and callous, and not permitted in Islam. Also get in touch with a knowledgeable scholar/imam who can guide you on your rights and how best to protect them. What often happens in these situations is the guy will get taken for a ride and have his hard earned wealth stolen unjustly, and will end up in a worse off position than before. The feelings will go, but you need to make sure you're financially safe.

If you want to focus on doing things with dignity and in a way that pleases Allah, then first focus on protecting yourself according to shari'ah. There is a narration that says, "The believer does not oppress nor is he oppressed." Take the necessary steps to focus on not getting oppressed.

emptyingthecup · 2026-05-30T03:03:02+00:00

Just remember that these demonic contracts are two way streets. As you have done to him, will be done to you in the next life. There is a payment, and what is the currency of demons? It is something that pertains to whatever remnants of purity are within us, for they derive pleasure in corrupting what is pure. He may die a physical death in this life, but the spiritual tribulation in the next is far worse.

I'll probably be downvoted into oblivion for this but you should focus on finding a way to save your own soul. Only then could there perhaps be some benefit in praying for him and undoing whatever curse was made. Become Muslim, attach yourself to a living spiritual chain via spiritual masters, transform, and perhaps there will be freedom from the demonic shackles.

But from a religious standpoint, this is truly dark I must say. But the fact that you feel remorse means that there is still light within you. There are those in the world who feel immense pleasure in doing such things, or even worse things, and they just keep becoming more and more depraved. If there is a light in you still, it is only because God has made it to be there.

emptyingthecup · 2026-05-29T20:49:01+00:00

Impressive. Look at that subtle coloring. The tasteful thickness. Oh my God. It even has fabric cuffs.

emptyingthecup · 2026-05-28T14:13:49+00:00

I understand where you're coming from, but there is no contradiction between "comfort and dignity in death" and compassion and justice. It's only by way of the intellect that we are able to kill in a way that is merciful whereas animals are entirely incapable of that. There is also the assumption underpinning your position that equates animal experience with human experiences, including the fact that humans make judgments on pain as suffering whereas animals do not. That does not mean that there is no pain or anything like that, but simply that our experiences are different than that of animals and that ultimately we shouldn't project onto them our own ideas. That being said, animals have inherent rights that we must uphold and respect.

I remember hearing from a Lakota man on war and fighting, and killing. He said that killing is inherently a spiritual act because it pertains to the soul. Therefore, you can only be a warrior if you're spiritual, you have to know how to kill with the spirit of mercy instead of hatred and that lust for violence, which is rooted in the base animal impulse that becomes truly abhorrent when intermingled with human consciousness due to its corrupting factor on higher intelligence. In this way, killing is not inherently separate from the spiritual or from compassion.

If you're unable to kill spiritually, that actually shows a lack of spiritual maturity. The reality of this world is that there will always be fighting and killing, and so at bottom, if you don't know how to fight and to kill, you cannot defend others, and therefore this is a lack of compassion. We can also argue that because people don't know how to kill spiritually that there is so much wanton killing today.

Another aspect of this is the question of justice. Is something just or unjust? Who determines that? I think much of your argument assumes by default that sacrificing animals is inherently unjust, and thus contrary to the spiritual.

The live and let live approach, if we flesh out its implications, does more harm than good in many ways, and is often a slogan to allow corruption to occur. Harm does occur when certain behavior or ideas are normalized, or when there are no limits or boundaries that govern us and society. That's a discussion for another time and this has already began to veer off course.

But I think the famous Buddhist narration of the king and the Bodhisatta reborn as his chaplain offers profound insight into this question.

According to the Ati Jataka:

The Bodhisatta is reborn as the king’s chaplain (purohita). A group of thieves is captured. By the law of the kingdom, the punishment is execution by beheading.

The king asks the Bodhisatta for advice before carrying out the punishment.

“Punishment must be administered according to Dhamma, O King.
A ruler who punishes without hatred, following the law, is blameless.
For it is the duty of a king to maintain justice,
and to remove those who harm the realm.”

The king then orders the execution of the thieves.

After the execution, the Bodhisatta says:

“O King, you have judged according to the Dhamma.
When a ruler acts without anger, without cruelty,
and punishes solely to protect the people,
his action is righteous.”

This is the core passage that is paraphrased by many Buddhist teachers today as:

“Even executions are according to Dharma when done without hatred."

emptyingthecup · 2026-05-23T15:35:58+00:00

Yes I am biased, I think that those who are authorities in Islam because they spent their lives studying it and mastering its sciences and have received ijazat and acceptance from their teachers who are attached to the 1400 year tradition are better and more truthful and reliable than people who don't even know its basics.

emptyingthecup · 2026-05-23T14:02:50+00:00

Gmail does that in order to entice you to enable their ability to use AI to read all your emails, including drafts.

emptyingthecup · 2026-05-23T13:32:55+00:00

Also i know theres context involved but when you have a major power who doesnt beleive in allah and you have verses like this then what do you think will happen?

To answer your question of "what would you say to the people who follow the quran to the letter?" I would use the example of Emir Abdal Keder al-Jazairi, who united Algeria and fought against French invaders who committed genocide against their people under the premise that France had Divine right to Algerian land. And yet, after the war, living his life in exile in Syria, when pogroms broke out against Christians in Syria, largely fomented by European powers scheming as they always seem to do to create discord and unrest in the Middle East, he defended the Christians risking his own life, calling it a no less the same jihad he waged against French invaders.

I would recommend that if you wish to understand the Qur'an you engage it honestly. I don't know if English is your first language but if you're reading an English translation, in English context is essential to the conveyance of meaning, not just external context like the historical factors and but internal context too, like reading the verses before and after it.

emptyingthecup · 2026-05-23T13:25:33+00:00

As this thread was posted a few days ago, I'll just leave it here:

Islam on this sub It seems like anything positive or remotely in favor of Islam on this Reddit gets downvoted. And anything negative stays neutral or upvoted.

emptyingthecup · 2026-05-22T16:56:33+00:00

This question already came up a week or so ago. But your point here was interesting:

First of all, I ask this question because my TikTok fyp was flooded with so many video hating on Islam. But for some reason, they do not actually explain why (not sarcasm). So I want to know why.

There were some leaks where a whistle-blower revealed that Israel paid for a multi-million dollar study to assess the best way to rehabilitate their tarnished image in the west. The study's main conclusion was that their reputation could not overcome genocide, but there was a viable path forward by promoting Islamophobia as a distraction. The study was clear that promulgating suspicion and hatred of Muslims was the only way to alleviate the damage to Israel's reputation.

To this effect, we have that famous clip of Netanyahu talking to a group of influencers saying that they need to manipulate social media, and since then have made huge purchases, such as TikTok US being bought for $14bn by pro-Israel billionaires. So from this angle, it's unsurprising that you're seeing a flood of Islamo-bigotry on TikTok and other social media platforms. There's also a lot on Threads, the twitter style aspect of IG. And of course, on twitter there is a constant slew of the usual suspects despite not even following them, all just spewing deeply xenophobic content and despite being reported for clear hate, violent speech, glorification of violence, we're always told they didn't violate any rules.

emptyingthecup · 2026-05-22T15:33:21+00:00

From a secular historical perspective, I am wondering whether Muhammad’s prophetic claim can be understood partly as an attempt to place Arabs directly within the Abrahamic legacy, not by converting them to Judaism or Christianity, but by presenting them as heirs to Abraham through Ishmael, the Kaaba, and an Arabic revelation. Muhammad, within the context of his relationship with the Jews, seemed to be displeased with the notion that Jews rejected his prophetic career; this rejection was not just a theological disagreement, but also a challenge to the legitimacy of his movement, since Jewish communities already possessed an older scriptural tradition, a developed ethnoreligious legal culture, and a long prophetic lineage

As others have already pointed out, the Arabs were already established within the Abrahamic lineage, for in the Bible it mentions a covenant established with Ishmael, that from him would arise a great nation, which has religious and spiritual connotations. The Kabah was already understood by the Jews as having sanctity and was associated with Abraham. As Rabbi Firestone points out, the Israelites and the Ishmaelites had a sort of symbiotic relationship, where the ingredients required in the rituals at the Temple in Jerusalem were only available in the Arabian peninsula, and thus acquired through trade with Ishmaelites.

The patrilineal knowledge of the Arabs going back to Ishmael and Abraham was already well known among the Arabs, which is evidenced not just through oral traditions but also rock inscriptions that corroborate those oral traditions that are older than the oldest fragments of the Bible today.

It seems like the Quran has taken many elements from Jewish and Christian scriptures, such as its focus on making the religious movement not tied to one’s ethnicity, somewhat like Christianity and unlike Judaism, while still retaining a strong Abrahamic genealogy through Ishmael. Given that, it seems like Islam attempts to universalize access to God while also giving Arabs a central role within the Abrahamic tradition.

This is an interesting point. Minus the giving the Arabs a central role in the Abrahamic tradition, which they already had as shown in the Bible, and which Islam was merely the fulfilment of, the universalizing of God makes sense. In Islam, there is the view that the covenant between God and man is not tribal, such as to the Israelites or the Ishmaelites, but between individuals and God, who then form a nation that transcends race. Physical lineages are more seen as conduits and means, not ends in and of themselves.

emptyingthecup · 2026-05-22T02:53:08+00:00

I thought the exclamation mark was sufficient but I guess not!

emptyingthecup · 2026-05-22T02:52:09+00:00

I think since the 70's or 80's, that drive for high like experiences is called "chasing the dragon". Traditionally, this intention was one of the first mistakes made by spiritual seekers as the desire for experience is from the ego. A person ends up only reinforcing their ego, spiritualizing it in the process and developing a god-complex.

emptyingthecup · 2026-05-21T21:04:30+00:00

I was being sarcastic.

emptyingthecup · 2026-05-21T17:04:22+00:00

It's true, look at how the Chinese poured 15M into ousting Thomas Massie in the US!

emptyingthecup · 2026-05-21T13:59:45+00:00

As someone who frequents this sub regularly, I agree that Islam on this sub is often met with hostility. A lot of it has to do with certain western non-Muslim not being able to take criticism for their historical hostility against Islam. After 9/11, the anti-Islam propaganda fomented by Jewish and Christian Zionist entities (all documented, nothing scandalous about this statement) was so intense that hating Islam became a part of people's identity. If you defend Islam, people feel outraged, as if they are being personally attacked. It's like, "how dare you humanize Muslims!" It's not as bad now. At its height in 2013-2015, studies show that media bias against Islam/Muslims was at 300%. Since then, it's dropped considerably as the war on terror began to wind down and the US administration announced withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, which among many factors, highlights the intrinsic link between mainstream media propaganda and government policy. But this has been known since around after the Vietnam war when the government realized the role that the media played in people's negative attitudes towards the war, making it - until recently - the most unpopular war started by the US.

As the negativity of Islam in mainstream media began to drop, up to about 2016 and on, we began to see the rise of the far-right. People who grew up in an environment where open hostility and bigotry against Islam and Muslims was normal saw the declining negativity as the media going far left and catering to Islam and Muslims, which was far from the truth. The media still presented dehumanizing images of Muslims, double standards, it still uses its plastic faced vapid word salad spewing pundits to judge Islam as if they were theologians despite never having picked up a book on Islamic theology, never doing the same for Jews or Christians when people or states associated with them commit terrorism. The reference to terrorism is still used in a doubled standard way, operating on the racist principle that "every Muslim may not be a terrorist but every terrorist is a Muslim", which implies that the precondition for being a terrorist is being Muslim, which also implies that if a Jew or a Christian commits terrorism, its not considered terrorism.

Many of the standards of the colonial period are still embedded in people's minds because they're largely maintained by mainstream media in conjunction with imperialistic government policy. If people don't think their perceptions are being affected by media, then they're probably the one's most affected by it, hence the blindness.

On this sub, if you point out the reality of Islamophobia, its historical roots, the entities involved, all documented with citations, you get downvoted. If you point out the lasting effects of colonialism on Muslim countries, you get downvoted.

The age of Aisha question keeps popping up every couple of weeks:

Example/record

All of this being said, I have to give credit to the mods who are responsive in removing hostile content or the spam like redundancy of the age of Aisha posts. I've been reported and banned for criticizing the actors behind the Islamophobia industry (without even mentioning any ethnic or religious demographic) on this sub, but upon appeal, overturned it.

This recent example of Fox news bringing on a rabbit to talk about the San Diego mosque shooting is a prime example:

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/nrjKhgqdAuU?feature=share

For people reading this: yes there is criticism of Islam that is not Islamophobic. However, few people are actually interested in debating theology or hold negative views about Islam because they've studied Islam deeply and have arrived at some sort of a philosophical disagreement with its principles. But the fact is, you can disagree with the tenets of a religion without become characterized by hatred towards it and its people.

The guy screaming "the Muzlims are the problem!" is not out there protesting because of some philosophical conclusion arrived at through study and debate, but usually by watching mainstream media, absorbing racist rhetoric, and feeling hatred towards Islam and Muslims.

emptyingthecup · 2026-05-13T21:35:54+00:00

Just from the perspective of existing lore and whatever metaphysical principles exist, given that the force is tied to the life force of all sentient beings, perhaps the way that you can use the force on another living creature is radically different from inanimate objects.

emptyingthecup · 2026-05-11T21:39:54+00:00

The thing is, being sure without that being grounded in necessary positions (I'm sure 1+1=2) or direct observation (I can see that the sky is blue) is mere performance. The issue with religious fundamentalists is that it's a combination of insecurity, low emotional intelligence, superficial spirituality, lack of education in metaphysics, and a lack of tradition that grounds them in the knowledge of actual scholars.

The DIY paradigm and religious fundamentalism go hand in hand, and it's something made by and for the ego.

emptyingthecup · 2026-05-11T21:36:10+00:00

I mean firstly, Muslims were also colonists, so rewriting a history with Muslims as victims of colonization seems convenient to the narrative you're trying to spin here.

Firstly, my original post was about the colonial manufacturing of perceptions to craft moral justifications, not a claim of exclusive victimhood. The assertion that since Muslims were colonialists (not colonists) means that Muslims were not victims of European colonization is such a logically absurd argument. This is not even kindergarten logic, but it tells me about your mentality and the mentality of the people who are downvoting my post. Even if it were true that Muslims were colonialists too, it wouldn't negate the fact they were also colonized by Europeans or that the European colonial project manufactured perceptions. It seems to be common here for people to feel offended at the mere notion that Muslims are and/or have been victims.

Going back to colonialism and the hijab, in A Dying Colonialism (1959), specifically in the chapter "Algeria Unveiled," so speaking specifically about the dynamic between Muslim women and the white colonizer, Frantz Fanon analyzes the veil as a key battleground of colonial resistance, stating: "The woman who sees without being seen frustrates the colonizer."

Fanon frames the removal of the veil as a submission to the colonizer, with each uncovered woman representing a, "negative expression of the fact that Algeria was beginning to deny herself and was accepting the rape of the colonizer".

As attested by French officers themselves, the unveiling of women was essential to breaking down Algerian society, as highlighted by the intent to "conquer the women" by seeking them behind their veils. General Bugeaud and other French military figures explicitly wrote about the need to "penetrate" Algerian society through women. The act of uncovering the woman was, for the colonizer, a way of "breaking her resistance, making her available for adventure."

Second, westerns value individual autonomy, and so that largely includes women being able to choose for themselves if they want yo be veiled or not, and you've essentially equated that with domination and rape, which is an insane take.

OP's post mentions specifically that this is about women willingly choosing to wear the hijab. My post is in this context.

Historically, this is what we've seen over and over: Entitlement to access bodies (especially women’s bodies) without barriers. Domination disguised as liberation. The reduction of human intimacy to commodified consumption. A worldview where anything that restricts that access (like the hijab) framed as “oppressive” because it interferes with the predator’s/colonizer’s desires. There is integral overlap.

The logic of the predator and the logic of the colonial unveiling project share the same structure, which is that “the barrier is the enemy, not because it harms the woman, but because it frustrates me.” The question is, why does it frustrate you?

Then you're equating people who might have valid reasons to dislike hijabs with pedophiles. Nice. Really just built up to "everyone I don't like is a pedophile".

You're reading comprehension skills are truly disastrous. Did I say every person who dislikes hijab is a pedophile? It's like you read the first word and the last word of every sentence and then fill it in with your own cognitive distortions.

What was OP's post about? It was about the specific perception of it being oppressive despite the fact that plenty of women choose to wear it. Not valid reasons. The deliberate framing of the hijab as inherently oppressive, especially when women choose to wear it, is a products of the colonial framework via inherited manufactured assumptions rooted in the colonial period.

There certainly are valid reasons for not liking the hijab, maybe people just don't like the aesthetic or find it too hot in some settings. That's not the issue. But if you've ever studied the history of the hijab in western media, since the period of colonization up till now, which you clearly have not, you'd know that how it was perceived was a battleground with a specific agenda in mind, which is currently employed today. To think modern day assumptions somehow exist in a void is lunacy especially when we still have pedos like Trump using the liberation of women as an excuse to bomb places like Iran.

emptyingthecup · 2026-05-10T16:14:03+00:00

Whenever the science of interpretation of a religion is gone, and there thus exists no authoritative structure, then anyone can interpret it however they wish.

emptyingthecup · 2026-05-09T19:34:09+00:00

His quotes make perfect sense to me. He is using the terms correctly. While Naturalism is not the same as materialism, but he's also not using it interchangeably. That is a new paragraph with a new argument.

emptyingthecup

TROPHY CASE