Does Quran prohibit ?

Sharp001

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.

brook

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

unknownuser

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. )

Sharp001

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

Sharp001

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

unknownuser

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 above

Prostitute 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

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

Brother 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

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

brook

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 with

How 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

Sharp001

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 above

Prostitute 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

huruf

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

Sharp001

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

unknownuser

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

Last I checked, your wisdom was not divine wisdom, though if it is, I do beg forgiveness from your Holiness.

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.

This doesn't concern that group.

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.

How do you deem these sources of hearsay authentic? And supposing you take the above procedure and apply it, how are you any better than a kangaroo court? A kangaroo court at least has several people, you are playing judge, jury and executioner here.

So, if you get 4 authentic reports from hearsay sources regarding your son, that he is up to something in an authorised relationship, what is your response?

Are you going to confine him until a woman comes to take him into her "protection"?

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.

What if your fiancee gets suspicious reports, all independent, whom she can trust, regarding YOUR character? There is a reasonable probability for everything, does it mean it's true?

And what about the scenario I already outlined regarding your four honourable witnesses and the one whore?

OPF,

I understand your concerns regarding this issue. Can I ask you what your study of the Book has revealed to you?

Peace

It's not a complete understanding but 415 and 16 are evidently complementary to each other (dual used in one, plural in the other, punishment specified in one, no punishment specified in the other, four witnesses specified in one, nothing in the other, method specified for exiting in one, exiting clause in the other, etc). The context is clear, that mankind is addressed at the start of the verse.

Nowhere does it sanction the usage of suspicious witness and nowhere does it charge a single person with the duty. Think about it, God has declared man as an "khilafah"/envoy/successor on Earth, and here is the same mankind being addressed. Do you see diplomats or envoys from a country going to another to spy on them, especially when their leader states explicitly that suspicioun is to be wholly avoided, that there is 80% the punishment of zina for bearing false witness, and so on and so on?

As I hopefully demonstrated, the scenario becomes twice as ridiculous when the male is accused of fahisha, at least with the disputed understanding.

huruf

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

First Can you quote anything from the Qur'an to uphold this?
Second What is this labelling). Legally you are either guilty or not. There is no labelling whatsoever. Where is this labelling in the Qur'an? It si completely new to me except as a thing to avoid.
Third No. No way that you can proove anything whatsoever summing testimonies that each by itself would be void. NO WAY. Besides when you pretend that that would "label" somebody else without the witness incriminating him or herself. Again, you cannot add four void testimonies and come up with a valid one. Better do away with the concept of crime and with any legal concept at all. I have never heard of anything so astray.

The closest thing with what you say that I can come up with is that if in strictly private terms someody you trust tells you this and that about a third person and you believe what this trusted person tells you and therefore avoid having whatever dealings with the third person, as a strictly private matter. No label, no judging, no branding. You, for yourself, act as you think best. For that trust is enough, no need to bring four fornicators (by their own confession) or whatever to narrate their private shenanigans.

savage_carrot

Salaam huruf,

After reading the thread (good discussion), I'd like you to correct what I think you're saying to summarise

1a) There can't be 4 witnesses to different events labelling someone unchaste. Reasoning being that one needs the 4 witnesses to ONE event to consider that a legitimate prosecution/accusation as understood by the verses.

1b) If there are 4 witnesses to different events, then firstly it becomes void as one needs the 4 witnesses to one event in the first place and also because the purpose for 4 witnesses to one event is to check their testimony to the one event as being valid/true (by contrasting it against each other etc). One can't do that if there are 4 witnesses to different events (unless all four witness the different events/occurrences simultaneously as well? in which case one could take that as 4 different cases of charges or would it be one complete charge altogether?)

One can't bring in witnesses that participated in said events (but were bystanders, so to say or accidental "happenstancers" or something like that as long as they weren't involved in the act itself)?

huruf

| date=1194649944]

|
(unless all four witness the different events/occurrences simultaneously as well? in which case one could take that as 4 different cases of charges or would it be one complete charge altogether?)

One can't bring in witnesses that participated in said events (but were bystanders, so to say or accidental "happenstancers" or something like that as long as they weren't involved in the act itself)?
If they are simultaneous, that is what is needed, for one or for several instances of zina. Doesn't matter. I don't remember that you need a particular number of acts to acuse, or that you can acuse of four acts of zina and give 400 lashes or of 20 and give 4000 lashes of a go. Same as when you poison. If it is six months of poisoning you don't count 1 dosis a day, 180 cases of poisoning, it is just one case of poisoning.
I was talking about the particular case mentioned by Shaarp that you have four men who had intercourse with a woman.

If not, well it would be difficult to testify to one of the two of them and not to the other.

Salaam

savage_carrot

If they are simultaneous, that is what is needed, for one or for several instances of zina.

Thank you. I wanted clarification on what it was that was being said precisely in the posts.

I was talking about the particular case mentioned by Shaarp that you have four men who had intercourse with a woman.

Yes.

If not, well it would be difficult to testify to one of the two of them and not to the other.
Thanks again.

unknownuser

Who's arguing with who? ;D

Sharp001

Sister huruf,

First up, I apologize for using the word "label". I think I only used it for want of a better word. Let's see if I can come up with a better one. Now, let's take up our discussion. Although I am probably not as proficient as you in terms of knowledge of the Book, but I will try my best. Maybe, I'll learn something new. Secondly, I think there was a misunderstanding. When I described the second case, with a witness of each of the 5 events, I did not mean that they were the ones engaged in the act. Following from the first case I quoted, they were 5 different persons, not engaged in the act, who witnessed the act each time it was committed.

First Can you quote anything from the Qur'an to uphold this?
Second What is this labelling). Legally you are either guilty or not. There is no labelling whatsoever. Where is this labelling in the Qur'an? It si completely new to me except as a thing to avoid.
Third No. No way that you can proove anything whatsoever summing testimonies that each by itself would be void. NO WAY. Besides when you pretend that that would "label" somebody else without the witness incriminating him or herself. Again, you cannot add four void testimonies and come up with a valid one. Better do away with the concept of crime and with any legal concept at all. I have never heard of anything so astray.

The closest thing with what you say that I can come up with is that if in strictly private terms someody you trust tells you this and that about a third person and you believe what this trusted person tells you and therefore avoid having whatever dealings with the third person, as a strictly private matter. No label, no judging, no branding. You, for yourself, act as you think best. For that trust is enough, no need to bring four fornicators (by their own confession) or whatever to narrate their private shenanigans.

Allow me to quote the two verses under discussion for the analysis. Please pardon me if the translations aren't agreeable to anyone. It's a Free-minds Translation

415 - "And the women who commit lewdness, you shall bring four witnesses over them from amongst you; if they bear witness, then you shall restrict them in the homes until death takes them, or God makes for them a way out." (Note the Free-minds translation translates the above with "two" women, whereas all other translations do not include the "two", so I have used the understanding of the majority.)

416 - "And the two men who commit it from amongst you, then you shall annoy them. If they repent and amend, then leave them alone. God is Redeemer, Merciful."

As we know that the Book makes everything clear, and has the best examples and explanations. To that effect, I would also like to quote an example of Yusuf (Joseph) naratted in the Book about a just and fair decision, which I think is relevant to the discussion.

1222 to 29 - "And when he reached his maturity, We gave him position and knowledge. It is thus that We reward the good doers. And the woman, in whose house he was staying, attempted to seduce him away from himself. And she closed the doors and said "I have prepared myself for you." He said "I seek refuge with God, He is my Lord, He made good my residence; the wicked do not succeed." And she desired him and he desired her, had it not been that he saw His Lord's proof; it was thus that We turned evil and lewdness away from him; he is of Our loyal servants. And as they rushed towards the door, she tore his shirt from behind; and they found her master at the door. She said "What is the punishment of he who wanted to molest your family? Is it not that he be jailed or punished painfully?" He said "She is the one who seduced me from myself," and a witness from her family gave testimony "If his shirt was torn from the front, then she is truthful, and he is the liar." "And if his shirt is torn from behind, then she is lying, and he is truthful." So when he saw that his shirt was torn from behind, he said "This is from your female scheming, your female scheming is indeed great!" "Joseph, turn away from this. And you woman, seek forgiveness for your sin; you were of the wrongdoers."

What I see from the above example, is an accusation of sexual misconduct against the lady, but justice was served, not based on witnesses, but on concrete evidence and proof. So, logically, if one has such an evidence and proof, it should suffice to make the judgement. However, only in the absence of proof, does the role of witnesses manifest itself.

In the context of the first two of the above verses, I have read many people asserting that the 4 witnesses mentioned in the verse can be participants in the act. Why I don't think that is likely is because of the following verse

2402 - "The adultress and the adulterer, you shall lash each of them one hundred lashes, and do not let any pity take you over God's system if you believe in God and the Last Day. And let a group of the believers witness their punishment."

Under the Quranic Law, why would any rational guilty person testify against the adultress, knowing full well that (s)he is also testifying against himself/herself? The only way I can think of is that (s)he is truly repenting his/her act. But in any case, the punishment is due & just for such witnesses. So, we can conclude that the witnesses who were participants in the act, would be punished, regardless and although possible, it is very, very, very unlikely that such persons would act as witnesses.

What about the person who originally accused the women? If (S)he cannot produce 4 appropriate witnesses, what happens to him/her?

244 & 5 - "And those who accuse the independent women and they do not bring forth four witnesses, then you shall lash them eighty lashes and do not ever accept their testimony. Those indeed are the evildoers. Except those who repent after this and do right, then God is Forgiving, Merciful."

This is a pretty grave punishment because not only are they lashed 80 times, nobody will EVER accept their testimony. So, even if someone you "trust" tells you something about someone's chastity (which is an accusation, no matter how you look at it) and fails to produce any evidence or the requisite witnesses, you should NEVER trust their word/testimony again, in addition to the 80 lashes, unless they repent and do right, of course. Things are getting really difficult now for the accuser, aren't they? But wait, that is just the worldly punishment? What about the Lord's punishment?

2411 - "Those who have brought forth the false accusation were a group from within you. Do not think it is bad for you, for it is good for you. Every person amongst them will have what he deserves of the sin. And as for he who had the greatest portion of it, he will have a great retribution."

I don't know about anyone else but personally I would think 1000 times before accusing anyone of adultery, without proof. How serious a matter this is, is understood from the following verses.

2412 to 17 - "If only when you heard it the believing men and women should have thought good of their own selves and said "This is an obvious lie!" If only they had brought four witnesses to it. If they did not have the witnesses, then these with God are the liars. And had it not been for God's favour upon you and His mercy upon you in this world and the Hereafter, a great retribution would have touched you for what you have spoken. For you have cast it with your tongues, and you say with your mouths what you have no knowledge of, and you think it is a minor issue, while with God it was great. And when you heard it you should have said "It was not right for us to speak of this. Glory to You, this is a great lie." God warns you not to repeat something similar to this ever, if you are believers."

Please excuse me, as I am not including the cases of married couples accusing each other of adultery. In summary, I think they can avert punishment by taking themselves as witness 4 times with an oath by the Lord and 5th oath for the curse of the Lord to be on themselves if they lie.

Even suspicion of such an accusation is frowned about in the Book, as follows

4912 - "O you who believe, you shall avoid much suspicion, for some suspicion is sinful. And do not spy on one another, nor shall you backbite one another. Would one of you enjoy eating the flesh of his dead brother? You certainly would hate this. You shall observe God. God is Redeemer, Merciful."

So, what is the conclusion that I have been able to draw from this discussion?

(1) If there is an accusation of lewdness (which includes but is not limited to just one act/event of lewdness), it must be backed up by concrete evidence.
(2) In the absence of concrete evidence, there must be 4 witnesses.
(3) The 4 witnesses practically cannot and will not be persons who were engaged in the act of lewdness.
(4) It is possible that each of said 4 witnesses have witnessed 4 seperate acts of lewdness by the accused.
(5) I could not find in the Book any verse which specifies verification of the character of the witnesses. Therefore, I will NOT put my words in it and thus, do not say that the reason for 4 witnesses/testimonies is primarily to cross-check each other's testimonies. For all we know, if they have coordinated among themselves, then the cross-check test is bound to fail. I will welcome any input from the Book, relevant to witnesses in this scenario.
(6) If all the above conditions are met, justice must be served with Allah as witness and punishment must be administered accordingly.

I thank you for initiating this discussion and welcome your input in this regard. This indeed is a wonderful opportunity to learn for me.

Peace

(P.S. - I have also read the subsequent posts. I think probably the only point of contention is the object of accusation. Verse 415 above addresses accusing women about committing lewdness, not just one act of lewdness. In that case, in relatively conducive circumstances, if a guilty woman wishes, she can just keep on commiting the act throughout her life, even if there happen to be one or two witnesses of each event.)

huruf

Salaam, Sharp001,

Thanks for all clarification and excellent post.

Regarding the use of other evidence in this matter, I would like to know more and better informed opinions than mine. I am not sure that evidence should suffice. It was so in the case of Joseph in the court of Pharaoh, the punishment was also different. On the other hand the sura An-nur goes to such great lengths, insist so much in saying that what it says is what there is and is so silent on evidence that I do think, it is purposefully excluded in this cases. Indeed, I think given the circumstances, the possibility of misuse or fabrication of evidence would be a no lesser danger than loose testimony. To me, evidence in these cases doesn't count.

The other part about lewdness being perpetrated the whole life, I still think that four witnesses must be for the same event. Lewdness could happen the whole life but you could have innmerable women accused without four witness.

And coming to the purpose and sense of this whole thing, it is clear that the sexual morals come in a completely different department as any crime. It is clear that punishment as crime is purposefully restricted, while morally they are very intensely condemned. And I think that that is inmensely wise. You cannot impose morality through the law without giving rise to hypocrisy and slander and putting in danger everybody's peace of spirit. Here, as opposed to theft or murder, every individual is called to take the responsibility of having a healthy society. I think the punishments are an indication of the danger of those coducts, but that to avoid them is mostly in the domain of individual behaviour. There is indeed very little that cand be added to the ayas that you have quoted on this aspect. We are called to exert good judgement and restraint, and we are called to help the people by giveng good example and good counsel and trust and let that people do their own moral journey. We have to respect that. We have to respect from where other people start and how they advance or (go back) in life, but we must not destroy their life, nor stabb them when may be they are making tremendous effort to overcome their faults. Sas they say noweadys, they have to haver their space to develop.

Salaam Sharp001