Does Quran prohibit ?
-
The choice is yours, isn't it? If you don't want to marry someone based on your own suspicion, then don't. But don't accuse the lady of being a doubtful character until you can prove it. That is the gist of it, I think and honestly, very fair, in my opinion.
Ya , very well said , i agree.
siki
-
your step-daughters under your guardianship, born of your wives to whom ye have gone in,- no prohibition if ye have not gone in(Wa rabaa-ibukumu allaatee fee hujoor ikum min nisaa ikumu allaatee dahaltum bihinna fa in lam takoonoo dakhaltum bihinna falaa junaaa Aaalaykum)
Who are those nisaa ikum whom you have not gone in; are they the women who are formally married to you or the women who you have legally sexual relationship with although they are not formally married to you?
Peace,
Hasan AkcayHassan !
Brother to answer you , down below i am reproducing one of my previous posts, I hope it answers your qustion, but if still there are more you will find me more than willing to help you.
Quote from Mazhar on August 28, 2007, 024728 AM
deleted
reply by siki
Quran is very precise and deliberate in usage of words, and Devinne wisdom is matchless.4-22. Do not marry (tankahoo)the women who were previously married (nakhoo)to your fathers - existing marriages are exempted and shall not be broken - for it is a gross offense, and an abominable act.
4-23 Hurramat ,,,,,,and your stepdaughters who are in your guardianship, (born) of your wives to whom you have gone in, but if you have not gone in to them, there is no blame on you , ,,,,,
In the first one the line is set as nikah, if a woman was ever in a bond known as nikah with your father , then you are not suppose to marry her. Here the line has been drawn at Neither Dakhal, Nor lamstamum , but at nikah
logically speaking one could not find out that weather his father performed intercourse, or had sexually touched her , The only assured parameter is nikah. Moreover if a woman has been made one's step mother by relation , Her Hurmat has been established for ever.
And another important reason for not setting the line at dakhal or lamstamum is, That one can not be assured to find and filter out the women , who have been sexually enjoyed or Dakhooled by one's father, where as Nikahed are.
On the contrary , lets us analyse the wisdom behind 4-23( the step daughter case)
A woman in niikahed and is brought home, let us say that she brings along "trouble" in the shape of a beautiful young daughter, Here God sets the line to the last limit, which is Dakhal, and gives you the chance to reconsider your decision, does not matter that you have nikahed her or even sexually touched her.
This is an every day affair, plenty of such girls get abused by their step fathers. That is why God gives you every possible leverage , but wants to protect the young girl from abuse. And this girl becomes Haram for ever, so that the righteous do not ever think on such a line by terming it as an impossibility , and put aside their lust.
I am sorry for being explicit , but i guess, you asked for it.
peace
siki
Hassan !
It simply means if you have entered a woman ( legally or illegally, married or MMa, or contracted , or Mutta) touching her daughter is an incest from then on.
peace
siki
-
Yes sherlock, innocent until proven guilty. As opposed to the traditional "girl fights off rapist and gets death penalty from imam/retard (delete as applicable)".
Four witnesses are not the only way to prove Zina.
But Quranists insist so that Brothels can prosper.A hidden agenda for which efforts ARE on the board.
So according to them
Red light areas community is CHASTE .
rotfl rotfl rotfl -
Just to say, I agree with Sharp001's comment. But, you said
If i am persuing someone for marriage, and i get doubfull about her character owing to information from 3 or 4 independent sources, wouldnt that be enough to create a doubt , and wouldnt i be calling of my pursuit?
Who verifies whether those 4 independent sources are telling the truth?
-
Four witnesses are not the only way to prove Zina.
But Quranists insist so that Brothels can prosper.A hidden agenda for which efforts ARE on the board.
So according to them
Red light areas community is CHASTE .
rotfl rotfl rotfljeechatter,
Are you actually mocking and ridiculing people who are trying to help your understanding? If you really think that this is a waste of your time, I am sure that there are other ways in which you could spend you time more fruitfully for yourself.
In any case, if one really consider a society based on the Book, I believe there won't be any brothels as no one would commit lewdness. It can only exist in a world where the morals have been compromised, justice has become a mockery and people tend to shy away from righteousness, which has always been and will alway be the case. But God is the most merciful and has given you guidelines to correct that world but how many of us take heed? It's a question that we should ask ourselves, all of us, not ask others.
Nobody here is giving the green light to a "red light area", but what I think most here believe is that there is no compulsion. One cannot and should not force someone to do anything against their will. People tend to do the exact opposite of what one tries to get them to do. The best thing that one can do is fulfil your duty to warn them with the Book and hope that they can find within themselves the need to change for the better. There is nothing else one can or has the right to do. One can pray for God's mercy on them but can't just start killing everybody who has wronged their souls without giving them a chance to redeem themselves. It is not a right given to anyone, and I mean anyone.
I am sorry if I have imposed my views on anybody, but having a right and a choice is just something I feel very strongly about, because in the end it makes everything fair when it comes to the Final Day. Whoever has done wrong has only himself to blame because he was warned and he had the choice, but blessed are those who, even in adversity have put their faith in God and practiced rigtheousness.
Peace
-
Just to say, I agree with Sharp001's comment. But, you said
Who verifies whether those 4 independent sources are telling the truth?
OPF,
Thanks for your agreement. I just want to say something in regards to your question. Whether the "independent" sources are truthful or otherwise, that is again not a matter for us to decide, it is between them and the Lord, because we can have no knowledge of what actually goes on in a person's head or heart. Only the Lord know it. If it were possible to "prove" that a person is truthful, then I think the people who naratted the Hadith and the people who compiled them have certainly used all possible means of doing so. Please understand that I am not berating any of these people, as I don't know them and therefore, can't say anything about them. They may well have been really pious and righteous people but no one has any possible way of knowing that.
Before anyone can point out the lie detectors and similar methods, all of them can be overridden and none claim a 100% sucess rate.
In conclusion, I do believe that the truth manifests itself eventually. That is how it has always been and will be. Therefore, if someone, in support of an accusation, produces 4 witnesses, who testify, knowing full well the consequences of hiding or distorting a testimony, then our duty is just to judge as fairly and sincerely as possible in light of those testimonies in accordance with the Book. God is most fair and just. He supports those who put their trust in Him. So the accused, even if innocent in reality, must trust in Him. The only people who need to fear in this scenario are the ones who had malicious intent in their hearts in these proceeding.
Peace
-
Are you actually mocking and ridiculing people who are trying to help your understanding? If you really think that this is a waste of your time, I am sure that there are other ways in which you could spend you time more fruitfully for yourself.
What understanding ?? That Brothel community is a "Chaste Community".Is this the Quranic understanding ?
The most "learned scholar" on this forum is sister Samia and she does not know even that "Nisaa " is the Plural of "imraatun".This is the standard of an "Arabic speaking scholar" of Quranic community.Look at her post
Salaam POF
"Rijaal" does not primarily mean "men". It means those who seek; on foot. It could be "men" or "women". Also, "nisaa'" is not the plural of "imra'a" but the plural of "nas' " the delayed; remainder, left behind. We find both meanings in the quraan.
A few days back Arnold Yasin was narrating that "Tasbih " means "swimming"
And now you people are declaring "red light area community" as "chaste community". -
What understanding ?? That Brothel community is a "Chaste Community".Is this the Quranic understanding ?
The most "learned scholar" on this forum is sister Samia and she does not know even that "Nisaa " is the Plural of "imraatun".This is the standard of an "Arabic speaking scholar" of Quranic community.Look at her post
A few days back Arnold Yasin was narrating that "Tasbih " means "swimming"
And now you people are declaring "red light area community" as "chaste community".Solo-flight,
Nobody has said the brothel community is a chaste community. I certainly have not said it. If somehow in someway you believe that I have implied that the brothel community is a chaste community, Let me clarify my point of view on it in straight words
"Any person, by whatever title called, who engages in sexual activities prohibited by the Book is not chaste. I do not condone brothels or red light communities or by whatever name they might be called, because and just because it promotes the occurence of the prohibited act. This is the prime reason why I would stay away from it, lest I went astray and advise people to do the same."
Please do not add anything to the statement above and associate me with it. The above statement is my view on this matter. It does not matter whether this prohibited act is done in a brothel or in a place of worship. What this does not necessarily mean that everyone in a "brothel" community engages himself/herself in this prohibited act. So, there exists a possibility that somebody in that community might be chaste.
I guess what I have tried to say is we should not attibute anything to someone if we have no knowledge of it. Like the book says, bring your proof if you are truthful. So, if you say and accuse someone of adultery, produce the credible evidence. If you have no such evidence, produce the 4 witnesses. For me, it doesn't get any simpler and fairer than this.
Peace.
-
siki,
I am trying to prove that the nisaa in 423 are married women rather than plain women. The nisaa ikumu allaatee... lam takoonoo dakhaltum bihin proves that. So much so that even lack of sexual intercourse does matter in their case as they are your nisaa (women married to you) despite the fact that they thave not been your bed-mates.
The rest is out of point. There is no use your going around the truth by making fuss over the fact that they could be dead or divorced later on. And there is no point my trying to reason with you any more because that is all I can say.
Peace,
Hasan Akcay -
I must have missed the memo from God stating that we shouldn't dare apply 1736 to anything but our arguments with pesky hadeethists.
OPF,
Thanks for your agreement. I just want to say something in regards to your question. Whether the "independent" sources are truthful or otherwise, that is again not a matter for us to decide, it is between them and the Lord, because we can have no knowledge of what actually goes on in a person's head or heart. Only the Lord know it. If it were possible to "prove" that a person is truthful, then I think the people who naratted the Hadith and the people who compiled them have certainly used all possible means of doing so. Please understand that I am not berating any of these people, as I don't know them and therefore, can't say anything about them. They may well have been really pious and righteous people but no one has any possible way of knowing that.
Before anyone can point out the lie detectors and similar methods, all of them can be overridden and none claim a 100% sucess rate.
In conclusion, I do believe that the truth manifests itself eventually. That is how it has always been and will be. Therefore, if someone, in support of an accusation, produces 4 witnesses, who testify, knowing full well the consequences of hiding or distorting a testimony, then our duty is just to judge as fairly and sincerely as possible in light of those testimonies in accordance with the Book. God is most fair and just. He supports those who put their trust in Him. So the accused, even if innocent in reality, must trust in Him. The only people who need to fear in this scenario are the ones who had malicious intent in their hearts in these proceeding.
Peace
But that doesn't work.
There is already a specific quranic protocol to handle accusations against women, but it's being skipped over in favour of a traditionalistic hearsay system with "3-4 independant witnesses". Why "3-4", why "3", in this case? 4 witnesses have been decreed in the quran arguably for a specific reason, and this is like making your own recipe for something and saying "3-4kg of flour with eggs" when the correct amount, no exceptions is "4kg of flour with eggs, AND bicarbonate of soda", with "bicarb of soda" being the quranic justice system already given therein.
Now let's go back to the original quote
A woman becomes Zania if she is seen committing the act by 4 independent witnesses , is labeled as such ,is to be punished and married only to a zani or a Muhsriq ( 24,2-3)
If Zina can't be proved , but 4 independent people can vouch for her bad character(4 different people seeing her in red light area , or 4 people admitting /reporting dating her for haveing some sexual fun ) , In this situation she becomes guilty of comitting fahishas, and hence can not be called a "Mohsinna" However she escapes the label known as "Zania" (4-15)
So let's get this right. A man, and a woman, fornicate somewhere where prying eyes reside. Four witnesses come forward and they are lashed 100 times each, and sent off free.
BUT - one woman is walking suspiciously in a red light district. Four witnesses see this. She is found guilty, of the "lesser act of fahisha" and sent for life imprisonment/house arrest. brickwall brickwall brickwall
Who thought this up, the clever folks at Al-Azhar? I mean, it's not all bad - at least the woman in the second scenario doesn't have the label of "zani" from unknown men. )
-
I must have missed the memo from God stating that we shouldn't dare apply 1736 to anything but our arguments with pesky hadeethists.
But that doesn't work.
There is already a specific quranic protocol to handle accusations against women, but it's being skipped over in favour of a traditionalistic hearsay system with "3-4 independant witnesses". Why "3-4", why "3", in this case? 4 witnesses have been decreed in the quran arguably for a specific reason, and this is like making your own recipe for something and saying "3-4kg of flour with eggs" when the correct amount, no exceptions is "4kg of flour with eggs, AND bicarbonate of soda", with "bicarb of soda" being the quranic justice system already given therein.
OPF,
I am sorry but I could not understand the context in which you made your comments. Could you please clarify?
Peace
-
Solo-flight,
As for berating sister Samia about her knowledge, if you feel that she is in error, you are free not to accept her point of view. Nobody is imposing on you to blindly accept what she is saying. If that was the case, then her role is no different from any other scholars of religion whose impose their views on everybody and give them the status of
religious law. What this forum facilitates is an exchange of knowledge that people have gained from their studies of
both the Book and otherwise. Everyone is welcome to get acquainted with that knowledge and choose which information is to form part of one's knowledge database. You might feel that someone might be in error with regards to your knowledge, so share your knowledge with them. Either person may learn from each other. No one imposes their knowledge on anybody.That is my point of view. If anyone would like to say something else for the benefit of Solo-flight, you are more than welcome.
Peace
-
OPF,
I am sorry but I could not understand the context in which you made your comments. Could you please clarify?
Peace
See below the quote. Apologies if I'm misunderstanding but life imprisonment for a lesser crime is ridiculous.
Also, it was implied that "4 independent witnesses" were enough to make doubts certain in the original post. In other words, the same rumour for 4 different sources creates doubt. Now obviously, it'll create doubt, but the quran resolves that by testing whether the doubt is valid, or simply gossip/hearsay, but here it is skipped over.
How exactly are 4 partners in crime fit to give witness? This just screams of Egyptian/Iranian "justice", sorry. Husbands may launch charges against their wives and vice versa, but where is that given for unmarried relations?
(4 different people seeing her in red light area , or 4 people admitting /reporting dating her for haveing some sexual fun )
For instance, 4 honourable witnesses sleep with the same whore. ) (cue audience laughter)
So
1 - Witnessed that he and prostitute slept together, or in any way did things, provides "honourable" testimony, BUT cannot provide witness to the other 3 having slept
2 - As above
3 - As above
4 - As aboveProstitute Has 4 witnesses against her and her own testimony against 4 people which cannot be verified independently.
Result
1-4 get off free (insufficient number of witnesses), prostitute imprisoned for life.
)
-
siki,
I am trying to prove that the nisaa in 423 are married women rather than plain women. The nisaa ikumu allaatee... lam takoonoo dakhaltum bihin proves that. So much so that even lack of sexual intercourse does matter in their case as they are your nisaa (women married to you) despite the fact that they thave not been your bed-mates.
The rest is out of point. There is no use your going around the truth by making fuss over the fact that they could be dead or divorced later on. And there is no point my trying to reason with you any more because that is all I can say.
Peace,
Hasan AkcayBrother Hassan
i will make another effort,(the last one)
if you see the list of 13 prohibited in 4-23 , tell me, who are married?
All of them could be , and may not be .
"Nissa i kum" is only used with mother in laws and step daughter case, and i have already explained that why did God use the word "your women" rather than your wives(azwajikum)
God wants to protect the young vulnerable , if you are having sexual relations with her mother , legally or illegally. If you have entered (Dakhul) a woman , Sexual advance on her daughter is being categorised as INCEST which is strictly prohibited.
siki
-
opf
what is it, which is so difficult to understand? or Are you mocking the Devinne wisdom?
If a sexual act is so carelessly done that there are 4 people witnessing it , the couple is termed Zanis, punished , God decrees that no one should marry such people except their own kind , or Mushriqs may take them as their spouses.
In an ideal society where people follow God's instructions , No one would marry them , and they will be left with no choice than to marry each other (if they want to) , or any other labeled as such , or the people who don't believe in God's commandments (Mushriqeen)
Scenario 2
If i get authentic reports from 4 independent resources regarding my daughter that she is up to some thing in an authorised relationship , and may be committing fahishas, I as guardian, is being advised to restrict her , so that she cant go on her spree any more , till such time that she dies , or God creates an exit for her.
This exit could be that , someone marries her and takes her into his protection, or she realises her mistake, and genuinely repents. When you get your confidence restored in her , you may call her confinement off.
Same way if i recieve report by 4 different/independent sources (whom i can trust ) regarding the character of my fiancee , there is a reasonable probability that she could not be a chaste woman, so i can exercise my jurisdiction and call of my engagment.
siki -
if you see the list of 13 prohibited in 4-23 , tell me, who are married? (siki)
For godness sake, stop acting as if you don't understand. I never said that all 13 are married women.
Sexual advance on her daughter is being categorised as INCEST which is strictly prohibited
My point has nothing to with the daughters threatened with INCEST, women DIVORCED, women DEAD or any women of the sort. I am pointing out to the fact that the words nisaa ikum have been used twice in 423 to mean married women
(1)ummahaatu nisaa ikum
mothers of your women (wives)(2)nisaa ikumu allaatee? lam takoonoo dakhaltum bihin
your women (wives) whom you have never slept withHow can those women who never sleep with you be your women, nisaa ikum, and escape from being legally married to you although they live in your home as your women, nisaa ikum, and their daughters live with you as your step-daughters?
Peace,
Hasan Akcay -
See below the quote. Apologies if I'm misunderstanding but life imprisonment for a lesser crime is ridiculous.
Also, it was implied that "4 independent witnesses" were enough to make doubts certain in the original post. In other words, the same rumour for 4 different sources creates doubt. Now obviously, it'll create doubt, but the quran resolves that by testing whether the doubt is valid, or simply gossip/hearsay, but here it is skipped over.
How exactly are 4 partners in crime fit to give witness? This just screams of Egyptian/Iranian "justice", sorry. Husbands may launch charges against their wives and vice versa, but where is that given for unmarried relations?
For instance, 4 honourable witnesses sleep with the same whore. (cue audience laughter)
So
1 - Witnessed that he and prostitute slept together, or in any way did things, provides "honourable" testimony, BUT cannot provide witness to the other 3 having slept
2 - As above
3 - As above
4 - As aboveProstitute Has 4 witnesses against her and her own testimony against 4 people which cannot be verified independently.
Result
1-4 get off free (insufficient number of witnesses), prostitute imprisoned for life.
OPF,
I understand your concerns regarding this issue. Can I ask you what your study of the Book has revealed to you?
Peace
-
I am completely loss in the argument between Sharp and OPF regarding the witnesses. Please clear my doubts. Is any of you, implying that if you get for witnesses, that you do not have to question them about how they now and check theri testominy against each of the other testimonies to see if it is true or not. Because the gist of having witnesses in all judicial matters and not just one is the fact that you can check their truthfulness against each other. The fact of having four witnesses is also obviously in order to havegreater means of checking testomony, if not for what? Of course their testomony must be checked. That is in principle what will allow, if they give false testimony to punish them with 80 lashes. May be I have got you wrong, but, please clear.
Another thing, about this four witnesses each having had intercourse with a woman but successively and it making it possible for a woman to be branded this or that, may be I have got it wrong. But you cannot, YOU CANNOT, NEVER, brand anybody anything because four witnesses, each one of them witnessing a particular event, but not the same event as any of the other, can warrant any such a thing. What it can warrant, though, is that that testimony being a self-incrimination, the witness becaomes liable for the zina punishment or the fahisha, whatever. The woman might save him saying that it is not true. But, for God sake, I hope that you are not saying that if four people happen to say and even swear to an event, and if then another three people swear to any three other events that that has any consequence for the purported author, because in that case we better throw away any concept of administering justice or legality of any kind. Mathematically, you cannot uphold a charge on a single witness, therefore 0 charge+0 charge+0 charge+0 charge = 0.
Please, relieve me saying that I have got you wrong.
Salaam
-
I am completely loss in the argument between Sharp and OPF regarding the witnesses. Please clear my doubts. Is any of you, implying that if you get for witnesses, that you do not have to question them about how they now and check theri testominy against each of the other testimonies to see if it is true or not. Because the gist of having witnesses in all judicial matters and not just one is the fact that you can check their truthfulness against each other. The fact of having four witnesses is also obviously in order to havegreater means of checking testomony, if not for what? Of course their testomony must be checked. That is in principle what will allow, if they give false testimony to punish them with 80 lashes. May be I have got you wrong, but, please clear.
Another thing, about this four witnesses each having had intercourse with a woman but successively and it making it possible for a woman to be branded this or that, may be I have got it wrong. But you cannot, YOU CANNOT, NEVER, brand anybody anything because four witnesses, each one of them witnessing a particular event, but not the same event as any of the other, can warrant any such a thing. What it can warrant, though, is that that testimony being a self-incrimination, the witness becaomes liable for the zina punishment or the fahisha, whatever. The woman might save him saying that it is not true. But, for God sake, I hope that you are not saying that if four people happen to say and even swear to an event, and if then another three people swear to any three other events that that has any consequence for the purported author, because in that case we better throw away any concept of administering justice or legality of any kind. Mathematically, you cannot uphold a charge on a single witness, therefore 0 charge+0 charge+0 charge+0 charge = 0.
Please, relieve me saying that I have got you wrong.
Salaam
Sister huruf,
I am not sure on your first paragraph. But for the second one, I think the accusation is of not being chaste, rather than not being chaste at a particular moment. To establish if a person is not chaste doesn't necessarily imply that a person is unchaste just because in one instance she was engaged in a prohibited act and was seen by 4 people (who were not part of the act). One can also label a person "un-chaste" if she has engaged in such an act more than once, say 5 times, and has had a witness of each event.
That is my opinion of it. I hope I have been able to clarify it.
Peace