Adultery
-
Peace JK,
JK- So basically according to you even if a married person secretly has sex with another one, tht is not adultery and shldnt be punished, whilst a mere display of sex on the tv by a married couple/one which has a legal contract assuming responsibility should be punished as to be whipped by 100 lashes??!! Does tht make any sense at all? Moreover the Quran also states tht GOD doesnt want SECRET LOVERS. THTS WHT CORRUPTS SOCIETIES "SECRET LOVERS". If you wanna have sex let the community know, not how and where, but tht ur gonna do it n ur assuming responsibility. Man this really lacked any rationaility whtsoever IMHO. GOD Bless!
I don't get what you are saying. Are you saying that it is OK for a married couple to have sex on TV and a million people watches them? Are you saying that it is OK for a married couple to go on the street and have sex in front of everyone? I am saying that it is not OK because it is pornography/"zena".
If you are talking about a married couple taping themselves and not sharing the tape, then you didn't read my response to AM above carefully. Here is what I said about this situation
This is not pornography. It would become pornography/"zina" if the married couple deliberately distribute for profit or not for profit the tape for public viewing.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace "ayman",
Apparently you didnt get it so lemme rephrase down below ur comments.Peace JK,
I don't get what you are saying. Are you saying that it is OK for a married couple to have sex on TV and a million people watches them? Are you saying that it is OK for a married couple to go on the street and have sex in front of everyone? I am saying that it is not OK because it is pornography/"zena".
JK- 1st of all NO im not saying tht its ok for a married couple to show theselves having sex to the world BUT tht is a moral issue and if they do so we cant just lash them but perhaps give them a small fine which could gradually increase if repeated and the issue is settled. NOW on to wht i meant. I wanted to ask you dear ayman "Do you imply that married couples making a display of sex in public is a worse crime than a couple who doesnt have a legal contract and yet indulge in sex secretly? Do you consider the 1st one as zina whilst the 2nd one is not?" Simple. GOD Bless!
-
Salaam JK
If you just go back in this thread to the 2nd of April you will find that "simple" had the same misunderstanding.
We are not talking about "allowed" or "OK". It s about "punishable" and "proved". Is it OK to kill someone in secret? If there is no evidence, how are you going to punish the murderer in this world?
Morever, there are many "not OK" things that, even if done in public, are not punishable in this world.
-
Peace
Can you kindly comment whether the following contributes to zina.
A husband and wife sex video or image stolen by someone and released to the public viewing.
If 4 police officers break in for a routine check up and find a prostitute with her client.
4 DEA officers break in to a house on a drug bust and witness a man and a woman having sex.
Man walks in to his house with 3 friends and finds wife in a compromising situation with another man.
4 window cleaners see couple having sex in side the house.
(All examples are courtesy of Hollywood prime time)
-
Peace Warner,
Can you kindly comment whether the following contributes to zina.
A husband and wife sex video or image stolen by someone and released to the public viewing.Since they didn't deliberatly release the tape to the public, this is not "zena" (even if they were not married). It is also not "zena" if someone placed a hidden camera in a married (or unmarried) couple's bedroom without their knowledge.
If 4 police officers break in for a routine check up and find a prostitute with her client.
No, it is not "zena". The evidence is inadmissible because it violates the following laws
024.027
YUSUFALI O ye who believe! enter not houses other than your own, until ye have asked permission and saluted those in them that is best for you, in order that ye may heed (what is seemly).
PICKTHAL O ye who believe! Enter not houses other than your own without first announcing your presence and invoking peace upon the folk thereof. That is better for you, that ye may be heedful.
SHAKIR O you who believe! Do not enter houses other than your own houses until you have asked permission and saluted their inmates; this is better for you, that you may be mindful.
KHALIFA O you who believe, do not enter homes other than yours without permission from their inhabitants, and without greeting them. This is better for you, that you may take heed.
024.028
YUSUFALI If ye find no one in the house, enter not until permission is given to you if ye are asked to go back, go back that makes for greater purity for yourselves and Allah knows well all that ye do.
PICKTHAL And if ye find no-one therein, still enter not until permission hath been given. And if it be said unto you Go away again, then go away, for it is purer for you. Allah knoweth what ye do.
SHAKIR But if you do not find any one therein, then do not enter them until permission is given to you; and if it is said to you Go back, then go back; this is purer for you; and Allah is Cognizant of what you do.
KHALIFA If you find no one in them, do not enter them until you obtain permission. If you are told, "Go back," you must go back. This is purer for you. GOD is fully aware of everything you do.4 DEA officers break in to a house on a drug bust and witness a man and a woman having sex.
See 2427-28 above.
Man walks in to his house with 3 friends and finds wife in a compromising situation with another man.
This would be "zena" since the man entered his own house and thus the evidence is admissible because it doesn't violate the law in 2427-28.
4 window cleaners see couple having sex in side the house.
Whether the couple is married or not, this is not "zena". The evidence is inadmissible because it violates the law against spying in 4912.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace "samia",
Salaam JK
If you just go back in this thread to the 2nd of April you will find that "simple" had the same misunderstanding.
We are not talking about "allowed" or "OK". It s about "punishable" and "proved". Is it OK to kill someone in secret? If there is no evidence, how are you going to punish the murderer in this world?
JK- Who says wer to punish without evidence? Ofcourse the adulterer/adulteress would only be ounished if there secret relationship somehow comes to light which it almost always does at one point or another and if there is legal punishment for engaing in secret loving, which is the root cause of all probs, then no one or very few ignorant ppl would engage in such activities and even those few who do will quit over time. I dont think this is too difficult to understand or is it?
Morever, there are many "not OK" things that, even if done in public, are not punishable in this world.
JK- Thts right like idolatry for example or the freedom of expression even if it be somewhat offensive without the use of foul language which is banned in many societies too. GOD Bless!
-
In a "Quran only state", yes. Depends what a "Quran only state" is.
-
Depends on "lewdness".
Of course, in a state which has a Quranic constitution, people will be punishable for the specific acts mentioned in the Quran.
004.015
YUSUFALI If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way.
PICKTHAL As for those of your women who are guilty of lewdness, call to witness four of you against them. And if they testify (to the truth of the allegation) then confine them to the houses until death take them or (until) Allah appoint for them a way (through new legislation).
SHAKIR And as for those who are guilty of an indecency from among your women, call to witnesses against them four (witnesses) from among you; then if they bear witness confine them to the houses until death takes them away or Allah opens some way for them.004.016
YUSUFALI If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, Leave them alone; for Allah is Oft-returning, Most Merciful.
PICKTHAL And as for the two of you who are guilty thereof, punish them both. And if they repent and improve, then let them be. Lo! Allah is ever relenting, Merciful.
SHAKIR And as for the two who are guilty of indecency from among you, give them both a punishment; then if they repent and amend, turn aside from them; surely Allah is Oft-returning (to mercy), the Merciful.What does "lewdness" mean here?
-
And are we seriously going to expect them not to murder? Steal? Commit adultery?
You forget that the verses of law in the Quran have very little to do with religion and very much to do with... law.
-
Look around and you'll find why. I don't think such a thing is explicitly banned in the Quran. People must cover up and not reveal their private regions to random people, that is one explicit law. Another is that zina, punishable by 100 lashes, will ALWAYS be committed here. Now consider that pornography combines those two things, that is harmful, most assuredly.
The Western world is on its way down soon, as a result of being overly liberal. I hear they (in some places) want child molesters to have a daily dosage of "child porn" to prevent them from striking again. As you know, when one of these things is implemented in one place, it spreads like wildfire over time.
Now, if that's not sickening and a pointer as to why liberalism is horrid, then I don't know what is.
-
most people in the West are not that sick, they will not allow a kiddy fiddler to get his "daily dosage" of child pornography.
What is wrong with porn?
A) Do you understand the machine that is "liberalism"? It continually pushes for more, and more, and more liberalism. Nobody likes "conservatism", but they will mindlessly choose to do X or Y to satisfy group Z, in this case, bending over backwards for child molesters. As society "progresses", this gets progressively more "liberal", and we end up with paedophilia accepted generally. Remember homosexuality? People had your view back in the 50s.
B) Didn't I just say? It a) breaches sexual privacy and b) ALWAYS involves the act of zina
-
a) breaches sexual privacy and b) ALWAYS involves the act of zina
a) obviously such people do not value privacy
b) so in a Quranic state we would have to stop the non-Muslims fornicating?
BTW there is a whole world of difference between child molestation and things like homosexuality and porn.
-
a) Tough shit for them. Looks like they're going to have to stand up, be civilised and be productive members of sosciety instead of upholding their carnal desires. Oh, now that is a sincerely horrible thought.
b) Yes, of course, with 4 witnesses.
c) No. On a progressively liberal timescale, there is no such distinction.