Does Quran prohibit ?
-
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.
-
and what's verse 415 about?
Same.
Take into consideration the biological differences and how they relate
-
Sister Samia,
Yup, like I said, back to square one. Br. OPF's understanding of the word, "Al-Fahasha" is the same
Same as what?
Same.
Take into consideration the biological differences and how they relate
You mean about lesbianism? Then why is the punishment different (based on gender), and even more severe for lesbians?
-
Same as what?
You mean about lesbianism? Then why is the punishment different (based on gender), and even more severe for lesbians?
Where's the "even more severe punishment"? I only see one punishment in those 2 verses.
-
Life imprisonment?
-
Life imprisonment?
This one is for women, 15, more like house arrest.
16 speaks of "aathuuhuma punishing/hurting" but nothing specific.
If it was the same punishment, why not just put them in the same verse as that of "zina"?I also wonder if it is the same crime Why does the first verse speak of women in the plural and the second of men in the dual?