SomaliNet Forums

Mind you chastity is a central theme to all Abrahamic faiths...


Now, if you're coming from the angle that Allah mentions virgin brides for those promised jannah. That's a different story. It's quite similar to the men who say, women won't be given equivalents of "hoorul cayn". But really, omission from mentioning it, hardly is evidence of exclusion since Jannah everyone will be pleased.

I'll be back later with a proper reply.

The level of narcissism and utter solipsism it requires to lambast someone, then personally insult them and then 'kindly' ask them to refrain from sharing their opinions on a public forum must be staggering.

I'll give ur social justice brain a little challenge. Find me a patriarchal/conservative culture or an Abrahamic religion where the concept of male virginity exists.

Here is a verse from the Old Testament

The priest who is exalted above his fellows] may marry only a woman who is a virgin. A widow, or a divorced woman, or one who is degraded by harlotry—such he may not marry. Only a virgin of his own kin may he take to wife—that he may not profane his offspring among his kin, for I the Lord have sanctified him.—Leviticus 21:13-15 (NJPS)

Find a verse like this for men from any Abrahamic religion or a cultural concept from a conservative society that discusses male virginity/purity. Discussions of fornication won't cut it, cuz I concede that men of course can engage in zina/fornication and that it's a sin, but I'm specifically talking about the concept of virginity/sexual purity.

You've asked for a single verse pertaining to male virginity....

"Women of purity are for men of purity, and men of purity are for women of purity."(Quran 24:26)

And you have it.

InaSamaale, you took the single most important verse I had in my mind words right out of my mouth.

Also bar the Quran other authentic hadith/scriptures, why would I reference or provide evidence from ancient sources of monotheistic -Christian-Jude-an scriptures when these are often the very birth-place of male patriarchy and chauvinism? Isn't that much like a British colonialist challenging an African slave into providing evidence of his civilised nature through the white-washed history of man? (I am by no means a slave and you a colonialist but you get my drift)

In any event when Allah created Adam and Hawa there was no giver or "taker". Only man and woman. Companionship, love and respect. How this notion has been watered down and whipped up into this dark and condensed version of ownership-or taker of a woman's purity while Allah himself clearly emphasizes the importance of purity in both the sexes is beyond me.

I repeat virginity (and by extension chastity) and the notion of sexual inexperience is not subject to women alone. Its all quite simple actually and you'll excuse me for refusing to enter the sort of ceeb-measuring/pissing contest that your no doubt gearing up towards, but the truth of the matter is? There is nothing to discuss here.

Ps. You may continue to discuss this with yourself or others if it pleases you. Also I confess, I had considered removing the "please" bit but I felt in a provocative mood today no doubt stemming from the usual Sunday boredom so you shall have to excuse me for that tidbit. Other than that there is little else to say. It is my last word on the matter, I don't argue about absolutes and this is but one.

Good day to you.

Please continue folk.

Mind you chastity is a central theme to all Abrahamic faiths...


Now, if you're coming from the angle that Allah mentions virgin brides for those promised jannah. That's a different story. It's quite similar to the men who say, women won't be given equivalents of "hoorul cayn". But really, omission from mentioning it, hardly is evidence of exclusion since Jannah everyone will be pleased.

Hey my bad for the late reply, I got caught up. Don't think I didn't anticipate that you would use that ayah from Suratu Nuur as proof lol. I did. But that Ayah was revealed to address the slander cast against Aishah, and is not talking about what we are discussing here and definitely not talking about male virginity. Look at Tafsiir Ibnu Kathir and you'll see what I mean.

But I do agree that Islam requires both men and women to be chaste and refrain from Sex until marriage. No doubt. But the difference is this: when a man has sex for the first time, or even a bunch of times after that, he can revert back to being chaste if he repents and just stops having sex. Sex for men is like drinking, a man can go from being an alcoholic to never going near a drink again and society will view him in his current state. So for him it's a quantitative thing, where by if he can lower his zina acts down to zero he can be considered chaste once again. As for a girl it's different, because for her the act of having sex for the first time results in a qualitative change. It results in a status change from virgin to a non-virgin, even if she never has sex ever again. So once she loses her virginity she can't be considered chaste or 'pure' anymore within these cultures. But she can be forgiven by Allah for sure if she repents, no doubt.

That's why the concept of male virginity doesn't exist in Abrahamic religions or conservative cultures, because there is no qualitative or status change occurring if a man has sex for the first time. All he has to do is not do it again, but the notion of him no longer being pure doesn't exist.

Why do you think patriarchal traditional cultures are obsessed with seeing the girls blood on the first night, with many cultures hanging the blood stained bed sheets outside the house for the neighbours and relatives to see? How come they aren't as interested in what the guy has been up to before he tied the knot? That's because the idea of male virginity doesn't exist in these cultures and their religions, it just doesn't. In a sex act they view the girl as the one who has been violated and had her sharaf taken by the man. That's why when families find out such a thing has happened they want the guy to marry her asap to cover her shame. Key words 'her shame' not his.

I was never arguing that men can do whatever they want and have zina, I was just saying males aren't viewed as virgins and non-virgins, that's a totally gendered concept reserved for women.

The level of narcissism and utter solipsism it requires to lambast someone, then personally insult them and then 'kindly' ask them to refrain from sharing their opinions on a public forum must be staggering.

I'll give ur social justice brain a little challenge. Find me a patriarchal/conservative culture or an Abrahamic religion where the concept of male virginity exists.

Here is a verse from the Old Testament

The priest who is exalted above his fellows] may marry only a woman who is a virgin. A widow, or a divorced woman, or one who is degraded by harlotry—such he may not marry. Only a virgin of his own kin may he take to wife—that he may not profane his offspring among his kin, for I the Lord have sanctified him.—Leviticus 21:13-15 (NJPS)

Find a verse like this for men from any Abrahamic religion or a cultural concept from a conservative society that discusses male virginity/purity. Discussions of fornication won't cut it, cuz I concede that men of course can engage in zina/fornication and that it's a sin, but I'm specifically talking about the concept of virginity/sexual purity.

You've asked for a single verse pertaining to male virginity....

"Women of purity are for men of purity, and men of purity are for women of purity."(Quran 24:26)

And you have it.

InaSamaale, you took the single most important verse I had in my mind words right out of my mouth.

Also bar the Quran other authentic hadith/scriptures, why would I reference or provide evidence from ancient sources of monotheistic -Christian-Jude-an scriptures when these are often the very birth-place of male patriarchy and chauvinism? Isn't that much like a British colonialist challenging an African slave into providing evidence of his civilised nature through the white-washed history of man? (I am by no means a slave and you a colonialist but you get my drift)

In any event when Allah created Adam and Hawa there was no giver or "taker". Only man and woman. Companionship, love and respect. How this notion has been watered down and whipped up into this dark and condensed version of ownership-or taker of a woman's purity while Allah himself clearly emphasizes the importance of purity in both the sexes is beyond me.

I repeat virginity (and by extension chastity) and the notion of sexual inexperience is not subject to women alone. Its all quite simple actually and you'll excuse me for refusing to enter the sort of ceeb-measuring/pissing contest that your no doubt gearing up towards, but the truth of the matter is? There is nothing to discuss here.

Ps. You may continue to discuss this with yourself or others if it pleases you. Also I confess, I had considered removing the "please" bit but I felt in a provocative mood today no doubt stemming from the usual Sunday boredom so you shall have to excuse me for that tidbit. Other than that there is little else to say. It is my last word on the matter, I don't argue about absolutes and this is but one.

Good day to you.

How did you manage to fit so much condescension into one reply? Your haughtiness and pompous smugness are duly noted and only affirm your hardened status as a social justice warrior, a rapid breed of feral leftists hellbent on decimating the natural order of things.

And thanks for admitting that Abrahamic values are as alien to you as colonial values are to a slave, a rare moment where a duplicitous Somali leftist unwittingly admits their latent disbelief.

I'm only here to explain what I know of the moral code of my forefathers. Who ever is at odds with it can believe what they want and do as they wish.