Does Quran prohibit ?
-
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.
Salaam Shrp001
I agree with the rest of your post. However, this part which relates to Joseph story has nothingto do with "zina". This is more of a "rape" accusation, where someone did not give their consent. The woman is accusing Joseph of attempted rape. This can be proved or refuted by any evidence, not necessarily by even one witness.
Zina can only be proved by four witnesses. If any other evidence is permissible, God would not have mentioned a method, or a specific method, to prove it.
No specific evidence is mentioned for murder for example, nor for theft, which are both punishable crimes in human courts. They could be proved by any means.
-
Salaam Shrp001
I agree with the rest of your post. However, this part which relates to Joseph story has nothingto do with "zina". This is more of a "rape" accusation, where someone did not give their consent. The woman is accusing Joseph of attempted rape. This can be proved or refuted by any evidence, not necessarily by even one witness.
Zina can only be proved by four witnesses. If any other evidence is permissible, God would not have mentioned a method, or a specific method, to prove it.
No specific evidence is mentioned for murder for example, nor for theft, which are both punishable crimes in human courts. They could be proved by any means.
It escaped me that indeed though we know that no rape was involved the accusation was one of attempted rape. Yes, it is a different story.
-
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.
Salaam Shrp001
I agree with the rest of your post. However, this part which relates to Joseph story has nothingto do with "zina". This is more of a "rape" accusation, where someone did not give their consent. The woman is accusing Joseph of attempted rape. This can be proved or refuted by any evidence, not necessarily by even one witness.
Zina can only be proved by four witnesses. If any other evidence is permissible, God would not have mentioned a method, or a specific method, to prove it.
No specific evidence is mentioned for murder for example, nor for theft, which are both punishable crimes in human courts. They could be proved by any means.
Salaam to you as well, sister huruf and sister Samia
Thank you pointing out your views on Joseph's story. But I think there is a misunderstanding between us. My point of view is that there are two accusations in this story, not just one.
(1) The woman accusing Joseph of molestation/forced sexual misconduct.
(2) Joseph accusing the woman of seduction.Now that I reflect on my post, I think that the example of Yusuf (Joseph) might have been out of context, as Joseph's accusation is that of seduction, not that of "lewdness", per ce. But then again the definition of lewdness is so broad, encompassing indecency as well, that seduction, an indecent act, can be considered lewdness. I don't know but maybe an analysis of the word "Al-fahasha" in verse 415 might clarify matters in this regard.
(To everybody reading this post, please correct me if I am wrong)
"Al-fahasha" is derived from the root FA-HA-SHA(or SHIN). I searched the meaning for that root in Lexicon Lane, where it is described to mean, "became excessive/immoderate/enormous/exorbitant/overmuch/beyond measure, foul/bad/evil/unseemly/indecency/abominable, lewd/gross/obscene, committing excess which is forbidden, transgress the bounds/limits, avaricious, adultery/fornication."
So, in my opinion, it is very plausible that seduction as well as molestation/forced sexual misconduct form part or are aspects of "Al-fahasha". In fact, correct me if I am wrong but "Zina" is a very specific act which is also encompassed in that definition of "Al-fahasha" but "Zina" does not encompass the whole of "Al-fahasha". I apologize if I am saying anything out of context. Please point it out, if that is the case.
The punishment in Pharoah being different was emphasized, to which I agree. But the interesting thing about the chain of verses 1222 - 29 is the last verse ends on the verdict, i.e. she was judged guilty. The next verse (1230) then describe the reaction of the ladies of the city and the following verses the conversation they have with the guilty lady. Her punishment was not described in the verses following.
This just tells me what lesson was to be learned from the example. You mentioned Surah An-nur. It mentions punishments of the people involved AFTER the verdict has been passed, and no so much the process of judgement. As for silence about evidence, the same Sura An-nur reads
2434 - "And We have sent down to you clarifying revelations and an example of those who came before you and a lesson for the righteous."
As regards to fabrication of testimonies and evidence, then I should say that there would be no end to accusations and counter-accusations, e.g.
A says B is accused of lewdness.
B says Bring your proof.
A says We have video evidence.
B says It is cleverly forged.
A says We also have 4 witnesses.
B says Their testimonies are fabricated.
The judge says I don't know who is right and who is wrong and thus, cannot pass a judgement.I am sorry for the crude example, for I have tried to keep it simple. What I tried to imply is the role of the judge is to judge with justice.
458 - "God orders you to deliver anything you have been entrusted with to its owners. And if you judge between the people, then you shall judge with justice. It is always the best that God prescribes for you. God is Hearer, Seer."
1690 - "God orders justice and goodness and that you shall help your relatives, and He deters from evil, vice, and transgression. He warns you that you may remember."
I apologize if I have missed something in the Book, but I am not sure if it mentions what specifically to do if one has evidence and/or 4 witness. We have been told what is needed to pass the judgement (i.e. evidence, witnesses) and what the punishment should be for the guilty. The judgement in the middle should be just and equitable as indicated in the two verses above, and in order to make such a judgement is to objectively consider the evidence and the witnesses' testimony, use our resources (eyes, ears, reasoning, etc.) to arrive at an unbiased and fair conclusion to the best of our abilities.
The part about lewdness being perpetrated the whole life, I suppose we have between us a difference of opinion. I can only hope and pray that God reveals the Truth to both of us and forgives us for any wrong conclusions that we might have arrived at because of our limited knowledge.
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
Very well said. Thanks for the post
Salaam sister huruf and sister Samia
-
Salaam Sharp001
The fact that the accusation of zina is the only accusation where an accuser will be punished for not bringing 4 witnesses makes it clear that it is only 4 witnesses that is accepted. If I accuse someone of murder and my evidence was not accepted by the court, would I be punished? The main lesson of bringing 4 witnesses is to prevent people from slandering others. It is a societal disease. No one is harmed because two people decided to have illegal sex that nobody witnessed. The society will be harmed if two people, even married, engage in public sex. A husband/wife is an exception and they are exempt of bringing 4 witnesses. God here specified their evidence 4 oaths. No other evidence is required nor accepted.
-
Salaam Sharp001
The fact that the accusation of zina is the only accusation where an accuser will be punished for not bringing 4 witnesses makes it clear that it is only 4 witnesses that is accepted. If I accuse someone of murder and my evidence was not accepted by the court, would I be punished? The main lesson of bringing 4 witnesses is to prevent people from slandering others. It is a societal disease. No one is harmed because two people decided to have illegal sex that nobody witnessed. The society will be harmed if two people, even married, engage in public sex. A husband/wife is an exception and they are exempt of bringing 4 witnesses. God here specified their evidence 4 oaths. No other evidence is required nor accepted.
Salaam sister Samia,
Ah... Now I see that I have erred in my conclusions. In light of your explanations, I revise my conclusions of my understading of this topic as follows (If you feel that I have still erred in my conclusion, I ask you to please point it out)
(1) In order to judge over the accusation of "Al-fahasha" towards women, one has to have 4 witnesses (in accordance with (7) below), REGARDLESS, of whether there is any evidence or not, i.e. even if one has concrete evidence, 4 witnesses are still required to pass the judgement under God's Law.
(2) If a woman is found guilty of the above, she is to be confined to her home until death takes her or God makes a way out for her.
(3) However, if a woman is specifically found guilty of "Zina", one of the acts which constitutes "Al-fahasha", in addition to the punishment mentioned in (2) above, she is to be lashed with 100 lashes.
(4) The 4 witnesses to "Zina" practically cannot and will not be persons who were engaged in the act of "Zina" with the guilty woman.
(5) The 4 witnesses should testify against the woman of have committing "Al-fahasha", not necessarily just the one act of "Al-fahasha", as the accusation of commiting "Al-fahasha", not just one instance of committing "Al-fahasha", i.e.1 act of "Al-fahasha" = 4 witnesses to that event
2 acts of "Al-fahasha" = Possible witness ratio for each act 04 , 13 , 22
3 acts of "Al-fahasha" = Possible witness ratio for each act 004 , 013 , 022 , 112
4 act of "Al-fahasha" = Possible witness ratio for each act 0004 , 0013 , 0022 , 0112, 1111
More than 4 acts of "Al-fahasha" = Possible witness ratio for each act 00004 , 00013 , 00022 , 00112, 01111, etc.(6) All accusers who cannot back up their accusations against chaste woman (as opposed to woman guilty of "Al-fahasha" and not just restricted to "Zina" with 4 witnesses they are to be lashed 80 times and nobody is EVER to accept their testimony.
(7) One of the traits of the 4 witnesses must be that they must not have falsely accused anyone of "Al-fahasha", as described in (6) above, because their testimony is invalid forever, unless they repent and do right.Peace and thank you again for indulging me in my discussion.
-
Salaam Sharp001
Yes, that's it, except for number 3
- However, if a woman is specifically found guilty of "Zina", one of the acts which constitutes "Al-fahasha", in addition to the punishment mentioned in (2) above, she is to be lashed with 100 lashes
Punishment for zina is just 100 lashes, as per 242 (and applies to men, too ;D).
I did not understand number 5, but looks like I do not agree!
If they witness the first incident, she/he gets punished. Period. Crime removed from his/her file. Start afresh. Second incident start anew with 4 witnesses (doesn't matter if they are the same, since they are not declared unsound)..etc
-
Salaam Sharp001
Yes, that's it, except for number 3
Punishment for zina is just 100 lashes, as per 242 (and applies to men, too ;D).
I did not understand number 5, but looks like I do not agree!
If they witness the first incident, she/he gets punished. Period. Crime removed from his/her file. Start afresh. Second incident start anew with 4 witnesses (doesn't matter if they are the same, since they are not declared unsound)..etc
Sister Samia,
I apologize but I don't think that I have been able to clarify myself in all of conclusions. I much rather prefer a face-to-face discussion than one over the forums as the understandings have a tendency of not being completely comprehended by the other person. But in summary, you feel that all my conclusions are sound based on the Book, except (3) and (5). I'm not a hundred percent in agreement with your view on (3) but I'll get back to that after I make another attempt to clarify (5) below
(5) Let us suppose that there are 2 women, A & B. (Please understand that I am not trying to discriminate the women, in any way. Just trying to illustrate my understanding of 415. I am well aware that the same understanding may be applied to 416)
Case 1 Woman A commits an act of "Al-fahasha" and is accused of commiting "Al-fahasha". There are 4 different legitimate witnesses who testify to her act. Judgement is passed and punishment executed. Case closed for Woman A.
Case 2 Woman B commits 2 acts of "Al-fahasha" and is accused of commiting "Al-fahasha". There were 2 different legitimate witnesses of the first act who testify to the first act and 2 different legitimate witnesses of the second act who testify to her second act. Total of 4 witnesses testifying in favour of the accusation against her of commiting "Al-fahasha", of not being chaste.
I think we both agree on the first case. What is your view on the second case?
As for (3), is your understanding that that "Zina" is separate from "Al-fahasha"? If so, then I understand your point of view, but to which I don't think I am in agreement with.
I am more inclined towards "Zina" being a form of "Al-fahasha", in which case, the 100 lashes for "Zina" in addition to confinement in the homes makes sense, because this illustrates that off all the forms of "Al-fahasha", "Zina" is the most serious and thus warrants an extra-punishment. Just punishing a person guilty of "Zina" with just 100 lashes implies that the person, after receiving the punishment is free to roam about. But a person who is found guilty of a lesser act of "Al-fahasha", let's say seduction, is destined to confinement to homes for life, which now seems to me a harsher punishment than that for "Zina". Now you might argue that Zina is a more painful punishment than house arrest for life, but I'll just have to say that is a matter of perspective. Assuming that there is no repentence, the pain will go away with time and afterwards there is freedom. But for the seductress, there is claustrophobia, confinement and house arrest FOR LIFE. Personally, I would conclude that the punishment for the seductress is much harsher that the adultress, whereas adultery is a much more serious offence than seduction.
But that is just my view of it, which I have no intention of imposing on anyone. May the Lord guide me if I am wrong.
Peace
-
In case 2, insufficient witness for either act.
But realistically, surely that would be treated as 1 act, in that 2 witnesses + 2 witnesses = 4 witnesses, per act of zina.
-
Salaam Sharp001
Case 2 Woman B commits 2 acts of "Al-fahasha" and is accused of commiting "Al-fahasha". There were 2 different legitimate witnesses of the first act who testify to the first act and 2 different legitimate witnesses of the second act who testify to her second act. Total of 4 witnesses testifying in favour of the accusation against her of commiting "Al-fahasha", of not being chaste.
My belief is that no matter how many acts of fahisha she commits, each act must have 4 witnesses.
As for (3), is your understanding that that "Zina" is separate from "Al-fahasha"? If so, then I understand your point of view, but to which I don't think I am in agreement with.
I do not say it is different. It's a kind of fahisha. But fahisha is not necessarily zina. Just like saying ornge is a kind of fruit but fruit is not necessarily oranges.
As for the punishment by confinement, I agree with you that it is much harsher than that of zina. So perhaps we do not understand this verse correctly. I could not come to a conclusion regarding it.
-
In case 2, insufficient witness for either act.
But realistically, surely that would be treated as 1 act, in that 2 witnesses + 2 witnesses = 4 witnesses, per act of zina.
Salaam Sharp001
My belief is that no matter how many acts of fahisha she commits, each act must have 4 witnesses.
So the person, who has committed more acts of "Al-fahasha", without 4 witness in each case, goes scott-free, even if there has been different witness to each act, totalling 4?
Maybe this will help a bit. Let's rephrase the accusations. Kindly tell me which one is Book alluding to, in your understanding. That should be able to clarify the difference of opinions
(1) I accuse him/her of commiting an act of lewdness.
(2) I accuse him/her of being lewd.I do not say it is different. It's a kind of fahisha. But fahisha is not necessarily zina. Just like saying ornge is a kind of fruit but fruit is not necessarily oranges.
You'll have to excuse me if I am not utterly convinced by that analogy at the moment.
As for the punishment by confinement, I agree with you that it is much harsher than that of zina. So perhaps we do not understand this verse correctly. I could not come to a conclusion regarding it.
Let us hope that God guides us. There is no confusion or doubt in the Book. Just in our minds and hearts. I have always found that it is better to take a step back and re-analyse our thought processes. Maybe it'll help.
Peace
-
So the person, who has committed more acts of "Al-fahasha", without 4 witness in each case, goes scott-free, even if there has been different witness to each act, totalling 4?
Why not? They also go scott-free if there is no witness at all! Just remember that there are many acts that are even worse and have no punishment in this world and may put the sinner in eternal hell if they do not repent.
Kindly tell me which one is Book alluding to, in your understanding. That should be able to clarify the difference of opinions
(1) I accuse him/her of commiting an act of lewdness.
(2) I accuse him/her of being lewd.I would say (1).
You'll have to excuse me if I am not utterly convinced by that analogy at the moment.
This is how I deduce it
1732
"And come not near zina; it is indeed a fahisha and an evil way" zina is a fahisha422
"Don't marry your fathers' ex wives, except what has already passed, indeed it is a ""fahisha" and a hateful, evil way"
Marrying father's ex wife (or mother's ex husband) is fahisha6151
"come not near fawahish whether committed openly or secretly" fawahish plural of fahisha There is more than one kind of fahisha733 "Say God forbids fawahish whether committed openly or secretly,..." Same as above
-
someone says"Because eating poop isn't prohibited by God i should be able to do it right? RIGHT? HAHAHA"
No seriously.
Yosemite,
I thought that the Book instructs us to consume what is good and pure/healthy of his bounties. I have yet to meet someone who can convince me that poop possesses either of those properties.
Why not? They also go scott-free if there is no witness at all! Just remember that there are many acts that are even worse and have no punishment in this world and may put the sinner in eternal hell if they do not repent.
But the thing is that there are witnesses, in fact the required number of witnesses in total. The book tells us 4 witnesses and what I am concerned about is that in interpreting 4 witnesses as "4 witnesses to the event/act" (possibility of error in interpretation), one might not be just in his/her judgement.
I would say (1).
In that case, then the 4 witnesses to one event appears correct. But I suppose my understanding stems from the fact, that I think it is (2), i.e. I accuse him/her of being lewd. I need to review it again in light of the Book and see if that understanding changes or not.
1732
"And come not near zina; it is indeed a fahisha and an evil way" zina is a fahisha422
"Don't marry your fathers' ex wives, except what has already passed, indeed it is a ""fahisha" and a hateful, evil way"
Marrying father's ex wife (or mother's ex husband) is fahisha6151
"come not near fawahish whether committed openly or secretly" fawahish plural of fahisha There is more than one kind of fahisha733 "Say God forbids fawahish whether committed openly or secretly,..." Same as above
Thank you for quoting those verses. I don't know why but they have not done much to change my opinion. 1732 states that Zina IS Fahisha.
Therefore, it deserves the punishment for fahisha.
For Zina
Question 1 Has (s)he be found guilty of "fahisha"?
Answer 1 Yes
Punishment Life-time confinement
Question 2 Is the form of fahisha that (s)he is guilty of, Zina?
Answer 2 Yes
Punishment 100 lashesFor other "fahisha"
Question 1 Has (s)he be found guilty of "fahisha"?
Answer 1 Yes
Punishment 1 Life-time confinement
Question 2 Is the form of fahisha that (s)he is guilty of, Zina?
Answer 2 No
Punishment 2 No punishmentI mean just consider this imaginary dialogue between A and B
A Did you punish this person for commiting Zina in accordance with the Book?
B Yes
A What punishment did you order?
B 100 lashes
A What about life-time confinement?
B No, I didn't.
A Why not?
B Because that is the punishment for fahisha acts.
A Isn't Zina a fahisha act?
B Yes, but there is a specific punishment for Zina.
A There is also a specific punishment for Fahisha.
B Well...
A So you are saying that you didn't punish a Fahish act with the punishment described for a Fahish act in the Book?
B But I gave the punishment of Zina, which was the crime.
A And Zina is different from a Fahish Act?
B No, but...I am sure you understand where I am going with this.
Peace
-
A man who commits fahisha deserves a different punishment than another man who commits adultery because fahisha and adultery are diferent crimes, like a man who kisses an alien lustfully on the lips and another man who has sexual intercourse with a woman other than his wife. Different crimes deserve different punishments, don't they.
Peace,
Hasan Akcay -
How about robbery?
Shoplifting => Community service
Mugging => Depends
Armed robbery => Life imprisonment -
Peace all,
I agree that different crimes warrant different punishments. However, the issue at hand concerns punishments under the Book's instruction. For all fahish acts, there is a specific punishment. For Zina, there is a specific punishment. Zina is a fahish act. Correct me if I am wrong but when the Book prescribed the punishment for fahish acts, it does not say, "if a woman is accused of fahish acts, except zina, and is found guilty, then life time confinement" but says, "if a woman is accused of fahish acts and is found guilty, then life time confinement." So the primary punishment for fahish acts is life time confinement, but if the fahish act is Zina, then, in addition to life time confinement (the primary punishment for Fahish acts), 100 lashes.
Peace
-
For all fahish acts, there is a specific punishment.
Rather than for all fahish acts there is a specific punishment for only these three cases in the Book as far as I know
.woman-to-woman intercourse (415)
.man-to-man intercourse (416)
.adultery (242)Thehere is no specific punishments for the other cases such as the ones menitoned in 425 and 3330.
Peace,
Hasan Akcay -
Peace all,
I agree that different crimes warrant different punishments. However, the issue at hand concerns punishments under the Book's instruction. For all fahish acts, there is a specific punishment. For Zina, there is a specific punishment. Zina is a fahish act. Correct me if I am wrong but when the Book prescribed the punishment for fahish acts, it does not say, "if a woman is accused of fahish acts, except zina, and is found guilty, then life time confinement" but says, "if a woman is accused of fahish acts and is found guilty, then life time confinement." So the primary punishment for fahish acts is life time confinement, but if the fahish act is Zina, then, in addition to life time confinement (the primary punishment for Fahish acts), 100 lashes.
Peace
Shaarp, excuse me, please, but I get dumbfounded by some of your reasonings. How can you, for a crime, apply the punishment of two crimes? Following Samias example of fruit and orange, if you eat a fruit, and that fruit is an orange, you are eating ONE THING, not a fruit and an orange, that makes that two THINGS, it is just one and the same thing, and only one crime and only one punishment, the same as being a mammal and being a human, you are not two animals, you are just one. You are not examined by two doctors, one for mammals an one for humans. If you knife somebody dead, you are not going to prosecute for killing and also for injuries, since it is those injuries that cause the death, you just prosecute for the killing, which may or may not have aggravating or milding circumstances, but that is a different question, the same as you cannot qualify the same crime as murder and attempted murder, because obviously there is an attempt, a successful attempt, but that attenpt is already included in the murder qualification, if there ws no attempt then there wouldn't be murder either. One crime only.
It is already bad enough as it is, let us not give ideas, otherwise we will all end up being prosecuted for being born.
Salaam, and excuse my bluntness.
-
For all fahish acts, there is a specific punishment.
Rather than for all fahish acts there is a specific punishment for only these three cases in the Book as far as I know
.woman-to-woman intercourse (415)
.man-to-man intercourse (416)
.adultery (242)Thehere is no specific punishments for the other cases such as the ones menitoned in 425 and 3330.
Peace,
Hasan AkcayPeace Hasan,
We are definitely not on the same page. It is interesting that your understanding of "Al-Fahasha" is just same-sex intercourse, right? Hmm... that is something to ponder about.
Shaarp, excuse me, please, but I get dumbfounded by some of your reasonings. How can you, for a crime, apply the punishment of two crimes? Following Samias example of fruit and orange, if you eat a fruit, and that fruit is an orange, you are eating ONE THING, not a fruit and an orange, that makes that two THINGS, it is just one and the same thing, and only one crime and only one punishment, the same as being a mammal and being a human, you are not two animals, you are just one. You are not examined by two doctors, one for mammals an one for humans. If you knife somebody dead, you are not going to prosecute for killing and also for injuries, since it is those injuries that cause the death, you just prosecute for the killing, which may or may not have aggravating or milding circumstances, but that is a different question, the same as you cannot qualify the same crime as murder and attempted murder, because obviously there is an attempt, a successful attempt, but that attenpt is already included in the murder qualification, if there ws no attempt then there wouldn't be murder either. One crime only.
It is already bad enough as it is, let us not give ideas, otherwise we will all end up being prosecuted for being born.
Salaam, and excuse my bluntness.
Sister huruf,
No need for apologies. I didn't think that you were blunt about your assertions. Why I didn't wholly concur with Sister Samia's "fruit and orange" example is exactly because of what you said in your post. Kindly try to say that line from my perspective and you will see what I mean (Please understand that I am not trying to impose my thinking or understanding on you. I am just trying to show you my understanding)
An Orange is a fruit. The fruit I am eating is an Orange. I am eating an Orange which is a fruit. I am eating a fruit which is an Orange.
None of the assertions in the paragraph above indicate that I am eating two fruits. What I am saying is that Orange is a specific fruit that I am eating. Now let's replace the word "fruit" with the word "fahish act", "an Orange" with "Zina" and "eating" with "committing" in the paragraph above and see what we get.
Zina is a fahish act. The fahish act I am committing is Zina. I am committing Zina which is a fahish act. I am committing a fahish act which is Zina.
As for your interpretation of my posts as two crimes, from the above paragraph, can you see my point of view that I am not even implying that there are two crimes. I hope that you can appreciate that the other examples stem from a misunderstanding of my point of view, that there is only one crime but two punishments. Two punishments for one crime aren't unheard of. As we have pointed out in this thread, all accusers of "Al-fahash" acts who cannot back up their accusations against chaste woman (as opposed to woman guilty of "Al-fahasha" and not just restricted to "Zina" with 4 witnesses are punished as follows
Punishmet 1 80 lashes.
Punishmet 2 Life-time disregard of their testimonies (unless, of course, they repent and do good).Why I am concerned about the punishment of Zina (a fahish act as described in 1732) is something I discussed in a priou post, where it was implied that perhaps we have not understood these verses correctly, as pointed out by sister Samia below
As for the punishment by confinement, I agree with you that it is much harsher than that of zina. So perhaps we do not understand this verse correctly. I could not come to a conclusion regarding it.
In conclusion, I can see that the discussion on this topic is an exercise in futility, because apparently I am unable to understand (or God forbid, not willing to understand) or unable to communicate my point of view correctly. In any case, I hope and pray to God that these verses don't become applicable in my life-time, in case I pass an inappropriate judgement based on my flawed understanding, which goes against the Book. You will have to kindly excuse me for suspending my pursuit of this topic for the time being, until perhaps I reach a better understanding, as I don't want to rush into a misunderstanding or force a potentially incorrect understanding into my being.
Thank you all for indulging my curiosity in this regard. May God guide everyone of us and help us always remaining on the Straight Path.
Peace
-
Zina is a fahish act. The fahish act I am committing is Zina. I am committing Zina which is a fahish act. I am committing a fahish act which is Zina.
Salaam Sharp001
The problem is that the verse does not say if they commit an act of fahisha, which is zina, ...
The proper example would be
- I am eating an orange therefore I am eating a fruit.
- He is eating a fruit therefore he is eating an orange
Can we deduce that both statements are valid?