Does Quran prohibit ?
-
Salaam siki
Also verse 247. Why can't he testify under an oath? Either he believes them and is ready to testify under an oath, or he inclines towards not believing them. No one is forcing him to do anything. If he wants to divorce her he has to go to authorities and make the oath. Otherwise, no divorce on these premises.
Samia
i have failed to understand , why a knowledgable person like you,first confused the zina with fahisha situation, and now again is confusing Fahisha situation with 24-7 , which is totally a different scenario.
If a spouse is a sole witness to zina , that is where the oath comes in and that is what 24-7 is talking about.
come on lady , wake up, (guess you were sleepy while composing answers for my last post)
siki
-
Being locked up is bad, and I think we are missing something in this verse. How can we lock up somebody for a crime when we have another verse giving us a different punishment (242), and another verse telling the spouse what to do in this case if the stated evidence is not available(247).
Samia !
Do you know the difference between "Zina", "committing Fahisha", "and a situation where a spouse catches the other red handed, but does not have three more people witnessing the act"?
samia! imagine ,one day i come back home (inadvertently) early , and find (God forbids) my wife in a compromising position with an other man, in my bed room.
i have two choices ,
(1) sneak out secretly and call three more guys, and make them witness the act.
If not
(2) then i cant even talk about it, because 24-4 is waiting for me with 80 lashes.
The all mighty in his infinite mercy allows a special arrangement in this scenario , which is much more likely than a general 24-2, 24-4 situation.
siki
-
You are missing my point. What I want to say is that fathers and brothers can go as far as killing, locking up is their "mercy".
Samia!
you are missing my point, i mean to say that if there are some people who would be relatively caring and compassionate, they would be fathers and/or brothers.
The husbands, in such a situation is going to be one of the worst , if given a licence to do so, off course exceptions are there for each category.siki
-
Salaam siki
off course everyone is ordered to behave himself, but quran stresses upon controlling a lewd women , because if there is one such a woman on the loose , she is likely to find plenty of men, more than willing to go along , where as if there is no such availability, the men may be able to handle the surging testosterone in their blood.
We can also reverse the logic If there are no men who are willing to pay for sex, if there are no clients, the trade will stop.
Do you think this surging testosterone will stop if zina stops? What about rape as an alternative? Homosexuality (as in prisons, boarding schools, societies seggregating between the sexes...etc)?
You cannot say who is more responsible. It takes two to "prostitute", and that's why God says "The zaania and the zaani..."
What about 24-2?
it is self explanatory, why are you confusing the two issues, zina and committing Fahisha? i don't think we have any problem with 24-2 and what to do in case of ZinaZina is that one in a million chance when they are caught red handed performing the act by 4 people , and God's commandments are very clear what to do in such a scenario.
This "fahiha" also calls for 4 witnesses. Its punishment is more severe...what's it?
I am not confusing anything, otherwise I would not say that we are missing something. -
I will check the occurrences and get back to you.
however , the expression "Your women" in any language, would never lock the expression to the meaning of Azwaj only. and we have a clear proof in 24-31.
24-31And say to the believing women that they cast down their looks and guard their private parts and do not display their ornaments except what appears thereof, and let them wear their head-coverings over their bosoms, and not display their ornaments except to their husbands or their fathers, or the fathers of their husbands, or their sons, or the sons of their husbands, or their brothers, or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women(Nissa i hinna), or those whom their right hands possess, or the male servants not having need (of women), or the children who have not attained knowledge of what is hidden of women; and let them not strike their feet so that what they hide of their ornaments may be known; and turn to Allah all of you, O believers! so that you may be successful
This is very clear in the above verse what does nissai hinna mean , if you have some new theory, we can open a new thread and discuss the nissa i hinna separately.
siki
Siki!! This is the very verse that you (and I ) find as an exception. Why do you put it as an example? Moreover, I said "when related to males.."
One incident of "Nissa i hinna" i can remember off hand , is 24-31. The women to relax their dress code, and "Nissa i hinna" is used , along with the rest of the list. I am sure these "Niss i hinna" are not their spouses. And there could be more if one makes a deliberate effort to search.
Look at these two underlined verses Why would we need deliberate effort to search the meaning of "nisaa'ihinna" if it is very clear (both are your sayings)?
-
I will check the occurrences and get back to you.
however , the expression "Your women" in any language, would never lock the expression to the meaning of Azwaj only. and we have a clear proof in 24-31.
24-31And say to the believing women that they cast down their looks and guard their private parts and do not display their ornaments except what appears thereof, and let them wear their head-coverings over their bosoms, and not display their ornaments except to their husbands or their fathers, or the fathers of their husbands, or their sons, or the sons of their husbands, or their brothers, or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women(Nissa i hinna), or those whom their right hands possess, or the male servants not having need (of women), or the children who have not attained knowledge of what is hidden of women; and let them not strike their feet so that what they hide of their ornaments may be known; and turn to Allah all of you, O believers! so that you may be successful
Those "or their women", as far as I can see, refers to the wives of all those men that have been mentioned, that is the wives of the the husband's father... up to the sisters' sons. I can't see why it would mean anything else, since that seems to be pretty inclusive and any way and is the perfect parallel with the male part. It is interesting though that this "liberty" to dress is not male restricted, which seems to implay that the restrictions outside the family are not male restricted either and that we may have been looking at the whole thing with a very restricted view also.
Salaam
-
65-1.O Prophet! when you divorce women, divorce them for their prescribed time, and calculate the number of the days prescribed, and be careful of Allah, your Lord. Do not drive them out of their houses, nor should they themselves go forth, unless they commit an open indecency(Fahishas); and these are the limits of Allah, and whoever goes beyond the limits of Allah, he indeed does injustice to his own soul. You do not know that Allah may after that bring about reunion
I didn't say that , but my dumb brain deduces out of the above red sentence of the verse.
Even your favorite 4-19 says that . please read4-19O you who believe! it is not lawful for you that you should take women as heritage against (their) will, and do not straighten them in order that you may take part of what you have given them, unless they are guilty of manifest indecency(fahishas), and treat them kindly; then if you hate them, it may be that you dislike a thing while Allah has placed abundant good in it.
Men are being advised to treat women with compassion , but if they are guilty of committing Fahishas? then i guess , there is no sin upon us , if we kick them out or act misers while calling it a day.
siki
I agree with you, I missed verse 651, and this adds even more to my confusion!
Please read verses 651, 419 and 415 and tell me the difference between the fahisha in verses 651; 419, which calls for "kicking" the wife out explicitly or implicitly, and verse 415 which calls for them to be "locked" in the house, on one hand, and zina on the other hand. I am not challenging, but honestly I do not know. Moreover, it is all about "women". Why? What if a man commits it? How will he be locked in the house? What about the man with whom she committed the fahisha?
-
Those "or their women", as far as I can see, refers to the wives of all those men that have been mentioned, that is the wives of the the husband's father... up to the sisters' sons. I can't see why it would mean anything else, since that seems to be pretty inclusive and any way and is the perfect parallel with the male part. It is interesting though that this "liberty" to dress is not male restricted, which seems to implay that the restrictions outside the family are not male restricted either and that we may have been looking at the whole thing with a very restricted view also.
Salaam
It should be "nisa'uhum" in this case. The suffixed "hunna" means that the posessor is females.
-
May I put in my opinion so that I will check to see if I you agree.
First about Samia's questioning the difference between the fahisha in verses 651; 419, which calls for "kicking" the wife out explicitly or implicitly, and verse 415 which calls for them to be "locked" in the house, on one hand, and zina on the other hand.
The kind of fahisha mentioned in 651 and 419 is indecency such as a woman's kissing a man other than her husband on the lips. It is kind of preliminary to sexual intercourse, therefore regarded as a cause for divorce. On the other hand, the one mentioned in 415 is kind of real intercourse between two women, which deserves imprisonment. The crimes are different and so must the punishments be.
As for the expression nisaa uhum, I am confused again at Samia's taking it to mean only wives (azwaaj) as it covers also the daughters of the believers in 3359. Or are the daughters prevented from wearing the jilbaab?
Peace,
Hasan Akcay -
It should be "nisa'uhum" in this case. The suffixed "hunna" means that the posessor is females.
Yes, you are indeed right. So it is not "their women", meaning the women of the men, but "their" women, meaning the women of the women. I didn't even bother to look at carefully so imbued we seem to be with it being the women of the men.
But then this is something that doesn't have anythign to do with sex as we have been lead to consider the thing with the "mahram" and hiyab arguments.
-
May I put in my opinion so that I will check to see if I you agree.
First about Samia's questioning the difference between the fahisha in verses 651; 419, which calls for "kicking" the wife out explicitly or implicitly, and verse 415 which calls for them to be "locked" in the house, on one hand, and zina on the other hand.
The kind of fahisha mentioned in 651 and 419 is indecency such as a woman's kissing a man other than her husband on the lips. It is kind of preliminary to sexual intercourse, therefore regarded as a cause for divorce. On the other hand, the one mentioned in 415 is kind of real intercourse between two women, which deserves imprisonment. The crimes are different and so must the punishments be.
As for the expression nisaa uhum, I am confused again at Samia's taking it to mean only wives (azwaaj) as it covers also the daughters of the believers in 3359. Or are the daughters prevented from wearing the jilbaab?
Peace,
Hasan AkcaySalaam Hasan
You did not respond to the second part of my confusion regarding the three verses Why it is just about women?What if the wife finds her husband kissing another woman? What if she finds him in bed with another man? The quraan told us about "the zaania and the zaani". Why is it silent here as for the male partner and how to punish him?
As for verse 3359, remeber that the verse says O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the wives of the believers...". It's clear that "nisaa'" here does not include "daughters" as per the address to the prophet.
-
You did not respond to the second part of my confusion regarding the three verses Why it is just about women? What if the wife finds her husband kissing another woman? What if she finds him in bed with another man? The quraan told us about "the zaania and the zaani". Why is it silent here as for the male partner and how to punish him?
Salaam Samia.
If the wife finds her husband kissing another woman she does what he would do if he found her kissing another man, since exchanging lustful kisses with aliens is nushuuz (434, 412, a kind of faahisha, opposite of which is what the wife is supposed to guard in her husband's absence, that is, chastity. (434).
As for verse 3359, remeber that the verse says O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the wives of the believers...". It's clear that "nisaa'" here does not include "daughters" as per the address to the prophet.
In 3359 there is no uncertainty concerning the daughters of the Prophet since God addresses the Prophet and says banaat ekah. So I did not ask about them.
I asked about banaati'l momemeen, which is missing from the verse. My question was "Doesn't the expression nisaai'l momeneen cover their daughters as well as their wives?"
Or are the daughters of the believers prevented from wearing the jalaabib?
Peace,
Hasan Akcay -
Salaam Samia.
In 3359 there is no uncertainty concerning the daughters of the Prophet since God addresses the Prophet and says banaat ekah. So I did not ask about them.
I asked about banaati'l momemeen, which is missing from the verse. My question was "Doesn't the expression nisaai'l momeneen cover their daughters as well as their wives?"
Or are the daughters of the believers prevented from wearing the jalaabib?
Peace,
Hasan Akcaysamia! salam
I was about to post this point , when brother hassan took the lead, this is very clear proof that nissa o kum, or nissa i hinna does not limit the expression to azwaj only.
Nissa ol momineen means , all the women that a momin is responsible for including sisters ,daughters , mothers, azwajs ,and any body else who is under his guardian ship.
33-59 mentions azwajs and daughters for the prophet, cause Mohammad(pbuh) did not have any sister and his mother was not alive then.
siki
-
I guess they will be a little too compassionate for the spirit of punishment.
Moreover this is not their territory.
siki
Should all that has been said in this thread regarding the punishment be right, I don't think it is so much a question of what somebody guesses, but as to what the qur'an says and of actual facts, and it is a fact that women can be just as hard as any man and men just as soft as any woman, also with kin. And I can't see why compassion is incompatible with punishment.
As to the territory, can you give some aya where such thing is stated?
Salam
-
Salaam siki
We can also reverse the logic If there are no men who are willing to pay for sex, if there are no clients, the trade will stop.
Do you think this surging testosterone will stop if zina stops? What about rape as an alternative? Homosexuality (as in prisons, boarding schools, societies seggregating between the sexes...etc)?
You cannot say who is more responsible. It takes two to "prostitute", and that's why God says "The zaania and the zaani..."
This "fahiha" also calls for 4 witnesses. Its punishment is more severe...what's it?
I am not confusing anything, otherwise I would not say that we are missing something.Yes , we could control either end, but looking at it practically, it is relatively much easy to restrain a loose character woman to tackle the problem , rather than the men.
Let me give credit to women here , they are much better in handling their lusts, in comparison to men, and this is primarily due to design difference in their sexuality.
In reverse scenario, i guess 90% of Men population will be locked up.siki
-
Should all that has been said in this thread regarding the punishment be right, I don't think it is so much a question of what somebody guesses, but as to what the qur'an says and of actual facts, and it is a fact that women can be just as hard as any man and men just as soft as any woman, also with kin. And I can't see why compassion is incompatible with punishment.
As to the territory, can you give some aya where such thing is stated?
Salampicktell.4-34 Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great
sher ali 4-34 Men are guardians over women because Allah has made some of them excel others, and because men spend on them of their wealth. So virtuous women are obedient, and guard the secrets of their husbands with Allah's protection. And as for those on whose part you fear disobedience, admonish them and keep away from them in their beds and chastise them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Surely, Allah is High and Great
yousaf ali 4-34 Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because God has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what God would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance) For God is Most High, great (above you all
come on sister, lets get out of this business of proving equality , and get back to learning.
peace
siki
-
I agree with you, I missed verse 651, and this adds even more to my confusion!
Please read verses 651, 419 and 415 and tell me the difference between the fahisha in verses 651; 419, which calls for "kicking" the wife out explicitly or implicitly, and verse 415 which calls for them to be "locked" in the house, on one hand, and zina on the other hand. I am not challenging, but honestly I do not know. Moreover, it is all about "women". Why? What if a man commits it? How will he be locked in the house? What about the man with whom she committed the fahisha?
Samia , salam
If you go back few pages and read my previous posts , i have explained the difference in three scenarios , and their practical suitability.
There are distinctly three categories we are dealing with.
Case of Zina.
women committing Fahishas.
case of Fahisha/intercourse witnessed solely by the spouse.
samia ! you are confusing/intermingling all three.
siki