Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Users
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Free Minds Forum Icon
  1. Home
  2. Family Issues
  3. Marriage & Divorce
  4. Got som important Questions about Adultery?

Got som important Questions about Adultery?

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Marriage & Divorce
92 Posts 13 Posters 3.2k Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • J Offline
    J Offline
    Jack
    wrote on last edited by
    #31

    And I think pregnancy outside of marriage would be included, why not?. All you would need is 4 doctors as witnesses, with DNA evidence.

    excellent point

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • S Offline
      S Offline
      Samia
      wrote on last edited by
      #32

      Maybe it's both? P A lot of these punishments have more than one single effect. And I think pregnancy outside of marriage would be included, why not?. All you would need is 4 doctors as witnesses, with DNA evidence.

      I don't think pregnancy is to be considered as evidence, although it is evidence against fornication (do we have a punishment for that?) but not evidence for public sex. Moreover, public sex requires 4 witnesses, unlike any other matter that requires two or even one witness. Any hard evidence is counted at most as two witnesses (as in other cases requiring witnesses). It can't be accepyed in lieu of 4 witnesses. (this is my own fatwa jedi)

      The anology is drawn with pregnancy withing the marriage but from other than the husband. If it took place after at least six months of marriage, it belongs to the hsband and no tests are admitted. This is for the protection of the child, not the mother.

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • S Offline
        S Offline
        siki
        wrote on last edited by
        #33

        Don't clap yet...We did not give permission or approval.

        Good start.

        Now think (it feels good to give orders to think ;D) of who would not be affected / naturally protected if accused of fornication.. ;D..
        those will be the opposite of mu7sanaat

        Your Majesty! pr

        This being Ayman's invention, I had a plan to engage eat him on this, but you got yourself into it , yes ok, Never mind. jedi

        To start with,

        hail could you try and list your protected category for me? and how are they protected? ignore

        Additionally,

        which is the other unprotected category, and why is it OK to accuse them ? ???

        siki

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • S Offline
          S Offline
          Samia
          wrote on last edited by
          #34

          We never said it is OK to attack someone. We said they are not affected and they are naturally protected, naturally being "by nature" not "of course".

          I know you know whom I mean, because I mentioned this twice before, one of them being on your very thread of mohsanaat (or was it MMA?).

          Well, think of the

          1. impotent, primarily or secondary to an ailment; hermaphrodites and other congenital anomaly (such as blocked vagina), amputee (by accident or by pathology) (the can't have sex);

          2. bereaved psychologically (who had a horrible experience in their early years such as molested or raped children) or emotionally (death of partner/love); homosexual or people who are not attracted to the opposite sex; frigid (the don't want to have sex).

          These categories represent at least 30% of any population. Those are the non mu7San.

          I should also add to the second category nuns and monks.

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • S Offline
            S Offline
            siki
            wrote on last edited by
            #35

            We never said it is OK to attack someone. We said they are not affected and they are naturally protected, naturally being "by nature" not "of course".

            I know you know whom I mean, because I mentioned this twice before, one of them being on your very thread of mohsanaat (or was it MMA?).

            Well, think of the

            1. impotent, primarily or secondary to an ailment; hermaphrodites and other congenital anomaly (such as blocked vagina), amputee (by accident or by pathology) (the can't have sex);

            2. bereaved psychologically (who had a horrible experience in their early years such as molested or raped children) or emotionally (death of partner/love); homosexual or people who are not attracted to the opposite sex; frigid (the don't want to have sex).

            These categories represent at least 30% of any population. Those are the non mu7San.

            I should also add to the second category nuns and monks.

            Your Majesty! pr

            I am so '( ashamed while declaring , "I did not nope make any sense hmm of your posts "Then" , and "Even now";, ??? I would humbly hail request to kindly elaborate/re-word your opinion, so that the Royal command is under stood in its true essence. And if some "Darbari" attending the royal court has understood Her Majesty's sermon, he may kindly relay the message in commoners language handshake

            siki

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • S Offline
              S Offline
              Samia
              wrote on last edited by
              #36

              You are not using your grey substance as we commanded you, subject!

              Anybody outside this category is muhsan, that's immune from the (can't , does not want to have sex) syndrom.

              And what's "Darbari", if We may ask?

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • S Offline
                S Offline
                siki
                wrote on last edited by
                #37

                We never said it is OK to attack someone. We said they are not affected and they are naturally protected, naturally being "by nature" not "of course".

                1. impotent, primarily or secondary to an ailment; hermaphrodites and other congenital anomaly (such as blocked vagina), amputee (by accident or by pathology) (the can't have sex);

                2. bereaved psychologically (who had a horrible experience in their early years such as molested or raped children) or emotionally (death of partner/love); homosexual or people who are not attracted to the opposite sex; frigid (the don't want to have sex).

                These categories represent at least 30% of any population. Those are the non mu7San.

                I should also add to the second category nuns and monk

                I got it yay, I got it , yay Your highness! SO !, Do i have the royal permission to accuse the above categories ?

                And if you do permit , >D can i start( my accusations )with the last (red one)

                And what's "Darbari", if We may ask?

                commoners/elite witnessing/attending the Royal court/Darbar, are recognised as Darbaries, hail your highness hail

                And may i dare ask one more Question please?

                &

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • S Offline
                  S Offline
                  Samia
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #38

                  (big sigh) oufff! Thanks God, you got it at last! bravo

                  A reward for this big achievement for your likes You are granted more questions (this, of course, does not oblige us to answer them &gt

                  I will be a way for today (despite the on-line-green-light), so don't take it as I am ignoring you, or worse, I do not have an answer

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • B Offline
                    B Offline
                    Bigmo
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #39

                    Maybe it's both? A lot of these punishments have more than one single effect. And I think pregnancy outside of marriage would be included, why not?. All you would need is 4 doctors as witnesses, with DNA evidence.

                    That proves pregnancy but not adultery. Maybe she was raped. Maybe the guy married her and then denied she was his wife.

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • S Offline
                      S Offline
                      siki
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #40

                      Well, think of the

                      1. impotent, primarily or secondary to an ailment; hermaphrodites and other congenital anomaly (such as blocked vagina), amputee (by accident or by pathology) (the can't have sex);

                      What gets amputated by an accident in a female to make her impotent confused? and why are they being excluded in 24-4 confused? and if somebody cant have sex , does that mean that we can go on accusing her? brickwall

                      siki

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • S Offline
                        S Offline
                        siki
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #41

                        We never said it is OK to attack someone. We said they are not affected and they are naturally protected, naturally being "by nature" not "of course".

                        1. bereaved psychologically (who had a horrible experience in their early years such as molested or raped children) or emotionally (death of partner/love); homosexual or people who are not attracted to the opposite sex; frigid (the don't want to have sex).

                        I should also add to the second category nuns and monks.

                        ! So God has allowed us to throw unfounded > accusation At Red category in an attempt to bring betterment in their agonised lives. o o

                        ) ) '( '(rotfl rotfl brickwall brickwall elektro elektro ignore ignore voodoo voodoo

                        Your highness try and make use of this giveup , and accept that your response of "offering me to the lions" was an honest mistake ,when i declared your statement as "sweeping"

                        By the way, accept my appreciation for getting 5 green stars. Congratulations for being crowned as a moderator. bravo bravo

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • S Offline
                          S Offline
                          Samia
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #42

                          ! So God has allowed us to throw unfounded >D accusation At Red category in an attempt to bring betterment in their agonised lives. o o

                          No one is allowed to throw any accusations against anybody. You will not throw accusations against these people in the first place, and if one does, the rumour will not live long.

                          Any way, according to the "chaste" understanding, and since there is no definition for chaste, anyone can accuse any woman and say she is not chaste and that's why she is accused!! See what I mean? This would apply to any other meaning for "mu7sanaat", but here, the difference is that rumours will hardly be issued in the first place. Imagine someone accusing a hermaphrodite of playing around with a man/woman.

                          By the way, accept my appreciation for getting 5 green stars. Congratulations for being crowned as a moderator.

                          Thank you! You called me "your majesty" and the next day I have a crown!
                          You are my sheikh now hailnow
                          Next time call me "Bill Gates" please eat.

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • S Offline
                            S Offline
                            siki
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #43

                            wow wow

                            who shifted this thread here after three full pages were posted under general category? and what kind of relevance it has to the topic marriage and divorce?

                            It took me two days to find this. And who so ever did it , he/she did not have the courtesy to leave a note indicating its destination. I would request any moderator to kindly shift back this thread to its original category, or if it has to be shifted somewhere , it should be placed under "Questions and comments on Quran" category.

                            siki

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • S Offline
                              S Offline
                              siki
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #44

                              ;D Your highness ! did you hide this thread here? Oh i see, May i submit humbly? hail This is a gross misuse of your Royal Authority nope

                              But why did you have to do this ??? OK, I got it ! yes See you muscle in some other thread. > jedi

                              siki peace

                              1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • S Offline
                                S Offline
                                Samia
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #45

                                What gets amputated by an accident in a female to make her impotent confused? and why are they being excluded in 24-4 confused? and if somebody cant have sex , does that mean that we can go on accusing her? brickwall

                                siki

                                Salaam Subject siki

                                The cases I gave examples of do not apply only to females. e.g a blocked vagina does not apply to men, and amputee does not apply to women. Subject! I do not think I have to think for you!!

                                1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • S Offline
                                  S Offline
                                  Samia
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #46

                                  ;D Your highness ! did you hide this thread here? &nbsp Oh i see, May i submit humbly? hail This is a gross misuse of your Royal Authority nope

                                  But why did you have to do this ??? OK, I got it ! yes See you muscle in some other thread. >D jedi

                                  siki peace

                                  Hey!! Don't be so quick to accuse me! I did not move it.
                                  And why "some other thread"? What's wrong with "marriage and divorce"? I think it is more appropriate than (what was the previous category?).

                                  1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • T Offline
                                    T Offline
                                    TheNabi
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #47

                                    Peace Siki

                                    I moved the thread here because adultery is a marital issue. Next time read the categories before you make your posts. They will be moved without warning sometimes. Often enough you guys are reminded to read the categories before you make posts. Also I moved it after 3 pages because I noticed it then since I've not been on-line frequently.

                                    Joe

                                    1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • S Offline
                                      S Offline
                                      siki
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #48

                                      Peace Siki

                                      I moved the thread here because adultery is a marital issue. Next time read the categories before you make your posts. They will be moved without warning sometimes. Often enough you guys are reminded to read the categories before you make posts. Also I moved it after 3 pages because I noticed it then since I've not been on-line frequently.

                                      Joe

                                      Peace joe

                                      ) Me and samia were thrashing out the meaning of an ayat, and were trying to sort out "Mohsinnats", "false accusation" , "fornication" etc, which i suppose has no connection with Marriage or divorce, moreover I just wanted to bring The Topic, "Can a muslimah marry a non muslim?" to your kind attention, It is loitering in the general section for quite some time now, and i suppose, you are, around this time.

                                      handshake no hard feelings brother

                                      peace

                                      siki

                                      1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • S Offline
                                        S Offline
                                        siki
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #49

                                        Ok Samia ! lets continue with this debate, so do you have a change of mind regarding your opinion of this aya?

                                        siki

                                        1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • S Offline
                                          S Offline
                                          Samia
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #50

                                          Nope.

                                          Actually, I am waiting for you to convince me so that I may change my mind.

                                          1 Reply Last reply
                                          0
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Login

                                          • Don't have an account? Register

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Users