Does Quran prohibit ?
-
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?
-
Salaam Sharp001
The problem is that the verse does not say if they commit an act of fahisha, which is zina, ...
Sister Samia,
I assume that the verse you are referring to above is 242. Does the verse really need to re-iterate that Zina is act of fahisha, when, as you said, verse 1732 already establishes that fact?
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?
The second assertion is obviously wrong. I hope that you are implying that the first one is the correct statement, because if that is the case, then applying the "replacement" that I mentioned in the previous post, would result in the following
Before replacement I am eating an orange therefore I am eating a fruit.
After replacement I am committing Zina therefore I am commiting a fahish act.In summary, Every act of Zina is a fahish act, but every fahish act is not an act of Zina.
... or did I not get your question?
Peace
-
Before replacement I am eating an orange therefore I am eating a fruit.
After replacement I am committing Zina therefore I am commiting a fahish act.In summary, Every act of Zina is a fahish act, but every fahish act is not an act of Zina.
... or did I not get your question?
Peace
Your reply is the correct one.
Applying it to your sentences will beBefore replacement I am eating an fruit probably not orange.
After replacement I am committing fahisha probably not zinaWe are in a greement that zina is Fahisha. But fahisha is not necessarily zina.
-
Your reply is the correct one.
Applying it to your sentences will beBefore replacement I am eating an fruit probably not orange.
After replacement I am committing fahisha probably not zinaWe are in agreement that zina is Fahisha. But fahisha is not necessarily zina.
Sister Samia,
Thank you for putting my mind somewhat at ease. Now for the punishments, will the same line of reasoning apply for the punishments?
Punishment for Zina 100 lashes
Punishment for Fahisha Life-time confinement.Zina is Fahisha 100 lashes + Life-time confinement
Fahisha, which is not Zina Life-time confinementAre the above assertions correct as well, in light of the previously agreed assertions?
Just a Yes or No will do. If it's a 'No', then we are back to square one, and it will be fruitless (no pun intended) to continue onwards with this discussion, unless you want to shed some light on Hasan's (brook) assertions above.
Peace
-
NO. Period. Unless, the "until Allah makes for them a way out" is related to "a mushrik/zani marries a mushrik/zani", and hence they escape by marrying another adulterer (I can see some wisdom in that).
There are two or more possible scenarios as far as I see here.
One - Zina is specific
For instance, I have a cookbook. It says "take any fruit you like, and cook it." However, 5 steps before that, it says "if you are using an orange, slice it into halves and peel it". Does that mean I boil the orange after doing such and such? No.
An orange is a fruit, but nobody cooks it within reason. However, we have cooked apples and bananas.
Two - Zina is a fahish act and takes both punishments
So, we have these adulterers lashed for their crime then imprisoned for life. They either die, or have a way made out for them by God or repent and are released. The way made out would thus be a marriage with a fellow adulterer, even the person they did it with.
In addition, scenario three
415 and 416 refer specifically to homosexuality as indicated by the dual in 416, and life imprisonment but not 100 lashes is incumbent upon them.
-
Brother OPF,
Thanks for your input. Strangely, I was a little relieved when you said "No. Period" and effectively shut any further doors for discussion for me. But then you added "unless" and followed that up with 3 possibilities that you see, which means, in your eyes any one of them could be right, but only 1 of them has to be right, unless all of them are wrong.
Possibility 1 I apologize before hand if I am replying out of context to the possiblity that you meant to communicate, but I find it really unfair to compare the Book, which claims to have verses that complement and explain each other, with a cook book, which has different and unrelated recipes for food on each page, sometimes more than one unrelated recipes on the same page. I am sorry but I am unable to relate to this possibility.
Possibility 2 This is the possibility that I am alluding to. So you believe that my understanding might be the right one?
Possibility 3 I have put that question to myself as well as sister Samia, but haven't reached any conclusions about it as yet. Let's see what happens.
Peace
-
...so unless we arrive to the understanding of the meaning of verses 415-16, we will not know
the exact "fahisha" other than "zina" which is punishable
what exactly is its the punishment
why there are two different punishments to the same fahisha
or perhaps the fahisha in verse 15 is different from that of verse 16Until then, all we can be satisfied with (its understanding) is the punishment by 100 lashes for zina on both parties evidenced by 4 sound witnesses.
-
I believe it deals with homosexuality, as I said earlier, the verses are entirely complementary to each other. Look at 242, where it mentions a man and a woman (2 people) and likewise, in 416, 2 males.