Does 24:3 indeed forbid us to marry fornicators!!!?????
-
243 has really really bugged me.
"The ZANI will only marry an ZANIA or one who is an idolatress. And the ZANIA, she will only be married to an ZANI or an idolater. And this has been forbidden for the believers." (243)
ZANI referring to a male who committed Zina and Zania referring to a female who committed Zina in case one isn't sure what that means.
I live in the west, over here fornication is a VERY common practice and isn't seen as wrong by many. There are many non-mushirks here which would normally give me a great list of people to choose from but this... this REALLY restricts me to barely any.
There are the traditionalists... but I really don't want to be with them due to their usual radical views and the likelihood that they also don't want me for being a Quranist.
Therefore my options are rather limited as I would only want to go with non-mushirks and I don't like traditionalists either and rather burdensome /
I was thinking that maybe this simply might be in regards to the punishment stated in 242
"The adulteress and the adulterer, you shall lash each of them with one hundred lashes, and do not let any pity overtake you regarding God's system if you believe in God and the Last Day. And let a group of the believers witness their punishment." (242)
Thus I would think that 243 might be a continuation of the punishment that would simply restrict them to marry believers but I don't know and rather feel scared here. Traditionalists like to say it is not and that indeed we can't marry fornicators, but of course we don't always take their words.
What does everyone think? and if a believer does marry a fornicator, is the marriage considered void to God?
Thanks.
-
You are forbidden to marry them until they repent and totally change their ways and thus they leave behind the status of 'zani'.
If a person has cheated on their partners, do you think that those guys are going to be good partners for YOU? Do you think they have demonstrated that they even give two shits about God? Do you think they are going to invite you to anything but the fire? You're better off sticking it in a hornet's nest.
-
You are forbidden to marry them until they repent and totally change their ways and thus they leave behind the status of 'zani'.
If a person has cheated on their partners, do you think that those guys are going to be good partners for YOU? Do you think they have demonstrated that they even give two shits about God? Do you think they are going to invite you to anything but the fire? You're better off sticking it in a hornet's nest.
I don't care about those who cheated on me as thats ADULTERY. I was referring to the other meaning of Zina which is Fornication which I don't see why we would be forbidden to go with considering they cheated on no one and only had sex before marriage there.
Here in the west, adultery isn't THAT common so I don't worry about that. It's Fornication that I worry about which is the other meaning of Zina and thus why I find it illogical as to why we can't go with them.
I would think 243 still is a continuation of 242 possibly meaning that once 4 have seen them in the act of Zina and therefore lashed, this would be the next step, but not sure and thus I want clearance and such.
-
Hello Aryan Warrior,
The key to understanding 243 (and the subjects of Zina and Shirk in general) lies in understanding the "original" concepts of The Arabic of The Quran.
Shall I continue?
Peace Shirley,
I am interested in hearing it.
-Amina
-
243 has really really bugged me.
"The ZANI will only marry an ZANIA or one who is an idolatress. And the ZANIA, she will only be married to an ZANI or an idolater. And this has been forbidden for the believers." (243)
ZANI referring to a male who committed Zina and Zania referring to a female who committed Zina in case one isn't sure what that means.
I live in the west, over here fornication is a VERY common practice and isn't seen as wrong by many. There are many non-mushirks here which would normally give me a great list of people to choose from but this... this REALLY restricts me to barely any.
There are the traditionalists... but I really don't want to be with them due to their usual radical views and the likelihood that they also don't want me for being a Quranist.
Therefore my options are rather limited as I would only want to go with non-mushirks and I don't like traditionalists either and rather burdensome /
I was thinking that maybe this simply might be in regards to the punishment stated in 242
"The adulteress and the adulterer, you shall lash each of them with one hundred lashes, and do not let any pity overtake you regarding God's system if you believe in God and the Last Day. And let a group of the believers witness their punishment." (242)
Thus I would think that 243 might be a continuation of the punishment that would simply restrict them to marry believers but I don't know and rather feel scared here. Traditionalists like to say it is not and that indeed we can't marry fornicators, but of course we don't always take their words.
What does everyone think? and if a believer does marry a fornicator, is the marriage considered void to God?
Thanks.
Salam
i will try to give you my opinion.Fornication is equated with not obey the law of God, i.e to be muschrik.
So if someone commits adultery, he or she is at this moment not a believer. However, if he/she repents is Allah Forgiving and Merciful.
I think the key to the right understanding is the Taqua (Fear for God) of every individual .
Zina can't be proved most of times or even always and it seems the law of God and the punishment for Zina point us to see that WE ARE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR DEEDS IN FRONT OF OUR CREATOR. He sees us, if no one sees us, and we can't hide anything before Him.
I understand this statement simple as an immutable law of God. Each receives / earned only what he prefaces , in this life and in the next.
Salam -
Salam
i will try to give you my opinion.Fornication is equated with not obey the law of God, i.e to be muschrik.
So if someone commits adultery, he or she is at this moment not a believer. However, if he/she repents is Allah Forgiving and Merciful.
I think the key to the right understanding is the Taqua (Fear for God) of every individual .
Zina can't be proved most of times or even always and it seems the law of God and the punishment for Zina point us to see that WE ARE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR DEEDS IN FRONT OF OUR CREATOR. He sees us, if no one sees us, and we can't hide anything before Him.
I understand this statement simple as an immutable law of God. Each receives / earned only what he prefaces , in this life and in the next.
Salam )I'm sorry but I COMPLETELY disagree with you. Here Shirk and Zina are listed as two separate things in that very verse and never said a Zani or Zania are Mushirks, and rather listed them and two separate people. As well as in many parts of the Quran Shirk and Zina aren't listed as being the same and so sinning doesn't equal to shirk and this has been disputed over and over and over again on this board, so I don't want another discussion of it if you want to argue as i've already done it and seen it done enough on this board.
For those who actually know a sin is not shirk, I would like to hear from them please and thank you.
-
Peace All.
Also, I have seen this too often, mixing and matching " Shirk" with a variety of sins like- Slavery, adultery, ...etc.
God singles out " Shirk" . It is acceptance of " Other than God" as authority. Undermining God s power, setting up of " another god " beside God . ie setting up a " partner" to God.
In short " idol worship" is " Shirk".
Whatever the argument some are bringing about leading to " Shirk" or connecting other sins with" Shirk" is not going to make slavery or adultery or any other sin as " Shirk".Peace.
-
243 has really really bugged me.
"The ZANI will only marry an ZANIA or one who is an idolatress. And the ZANIA, she will only be married to an ZANI or an idolater. And this has been forbidden for the believers." (243)
ZANI referring to a male who committed Zina and Zania referring to a female who committed Zina in case one isn't sure what that means.
I live in the west, over here fornication is a VERY common practice and isn't seen as wrong by many. There are many non-mushirks here which would normally give me a great list of people to choose from but this... this REALLY restricts me to barely any.
There are the traditionalists... but I really don't want to be with them due to their usual radical views and the likelihood that they also don't want me for being a Quranist.
Therefore my options are rather limited as I would only want to go with non-mushirks and I don't like traditionalists either and rather burdensome /
I was thinking that maybe this simply might be in regards to the punishment stated in 242
"The adulteress and the adulterer, you shall lash each of them with one hundred lashes, and do not let any pity overtake you regarding God's system if you believe in God and the Last Day. And let a group of the believers witness their punishment." (242)
Thus I would think that 243 might be a continuation of the punishment that would simply restrict them to marry believers but I don't know and rather feel scared here. Traditionalists like to say it is not and that indeed we can't marry fornicators, but of course we don't always take their words.
What does everyone think? and if a believer does marry a fornicator, is the marriage considered void to God?
Thanks.
Salam
If I may interpret freely.....
As a muslim you are not allowed to marry a person who believes in multiple partners or Gods. If you meet a man/woman whom you want to marry and he/she says "after we are married I will continue to be with other people" you are not allowed to marry them. If they say "after we are married I will continue to worship multiple Gods" you are not allowed to marry them.
I do not see anywhere in the verse where it is the history of the person that decides if they are marriage material, it does however suggest it is in the future.You are bonded to a person when you get married, what he or she has done in the past is obsolete.
-
You are bonded to a person when you get married, what he or she has done in the past is obsolete.
Unfortunately HIV does not become obsolete when someone gets married
Do you REALLY believe that a "person's past is obsolete"? I see people saying this time and time again, yet each and every time the whole thing ends in tears as the party at fault cheats yet again. It has never worked this way in human history, it will not work that way on judgement day so why do you think it will work for you as if you are some kind of golden exception? Everybody's past deeds is what makes themselves the being they are today, which is why over and over again, God says 'except those who repent and refrain from any further evil'.
If anyone wishes to marry an idolater/adulterer then do so, that is your individual will. But under no circumstances please try to distort the very plain, very obvious warning that God gives us.
Also refer to the beginning verses of ch23. If you think there is a distinction between 'adultery' and 'fornication' quranically then present your evidence. Otherwise remain aware of 236, 237.
-
The past is past when one repents and amends, but if one does not give any weight to what is past in the sense that there is nothing wrong with it, that does not forebode well. And I do not mean that one should throw ashes on one's head or go into a convent, but simply acknowledge that the things done were out of ignorance or recklessness or whatever, but if the person continues to think that there is nothing wrong with it, then the past is indeed not past.
Salaam
-
Unfortunately HIV does not become obsolete when someone gets married
Do you REALLY believe that a "person's past is obsolete"? I see people saying this time and time again, yet each and every time the whole thing ends in tears as the party at fault cheats yet again. It has never worked this way in human history, it will not work that way on judgement day so why do you think it will work for you as if you are some kind of golden exception? Everybody's past deeds is what makes themselves the being they are today, which is why over and over again, God says 'except those who repent and refrain from any further evil'.
Sorry IAMOP, not quite grasping what you are saying as in the first part it seems you condemn someone for their past even if they have changed - yes change IS possible - and in the last part GOD is clearly saying those who repent and refrain from the bad stuff, HE accepts.
Can you clarify please?
Quote by huruf
The past is past when one repents and amends, but if one does not give any weight to what is past in the sense that there is nothing wrong with it, that does not forebode well. And I do not mean that one should throw ashes on one's head or go into a convent, but simply acknowledge that the things done were out of ignorance or recklessness or whatever, but if the person continues to think that there is nothing wrong with it, then the past is indeed not past.
Agree, the person needs to see what was done as wrong or there is no repentance, no repentance = no forgiveness.
A person may have committed all sorts in the past and seen the error of their ways and repented and asked forgiveness. If they continue to do whatever it was after that then they have not sincerely repented but if they go on to lead a good clean life after this then - according to Quran - the God forgives, so should man (or woman) that person meets afterwards.
peace
-
I don't care about those who cheated on me as thats ADULTERY. I was referring to the other meaning of Zina which is Fornication which I don't see why we would be forbidden to go with considering they cheated on no one and only had sex before marriage there.
Here in the west, adultery isn't THAT common so I don't worry about that. It's Fornication that I worry about which is the other meaning of Zina and thus why I find it illogical as to why we can't go with them.
I would think 243 still is a continuation of 242 possibly meaning that once 4 have seen them in the act of Zina and therefore lashed, this would be the next step, but not sure and thus I want clearance and such.
Peace A.W.
I disagree...adultery is VERY common in the U.S. How many times have you seen people legally seperated moving on to relationships with new people. They are still married...celebrities do it all of the time.
Unfortunately, no one pushes the issue of it so most people treat it like it is nothing, but legal seperation still means one is "married" and therfore, committing adultery.
As for your understanding of fornication in this situation, I find it interesting, and I live in the West also, so I know what you mean about fornication. It is very acceptable here, people call it "sampling the milk before you buy the cow," to which I say "Who the heck are you calling a cow??"
Still waiting to hear from Shirley...
-Amina
-
Salam
If I may interpret freely.....
As a muslim you are not allowed to marry a person who believes in multiple partners or Gods. If you meet a man/woman whom you want to marry and he/she says "after we are married I will continue to be with other people" you are not allowed to marry them. If they say "after we are married I will continue to worship multiple Gods" you are not allowed to marry them.
I do not see anywhere in the verse where it is the history of the person that decides if they are marriage material, it does however suggest it is in the future.You are bonded to a person when you get married, what he or she has done in the past is obsolete.
Well as I stated I have don't plan to go with the mushirk so the multiple gods part doesn't apply. Obviously I also don't want them to be with someone while with me.
Sigh... as I said its about people who FORNICATED AKA had sex before marriage as in what is rather common in the west. So please stick by that topic here which fornication is another meaning of Zina.
Course it would make it rather hard to for me and others as fornication is really popular in the west and thus I am thinking that maybe 243 only applies to those who received the punishment in 242, but not sure and want clarification.
-
God says 'except those who repent and refrain from any further evil'.
A bit off topic but please don't miswrite a quote from the Quran as the Quran has simply said "except those who repent and do righteous deeds".
Peace A.W.
I disagree...adultery is VERY common in the U.S. How many times have you seen people legally seperated moving on to relationships with new people. They are still married...celebrities do it all of the time.
Unfortunately, no one pushes the issue of it so most people treat it like it is nothing, but legal seperation still means one is "married" and therfore, committing adultery.
As for your understanding of fornication in this situation, I find it interesting, and I live in the West also, so I know what you mean about fornication. It is very acceptable here, people call it "sampling the milk before you buy the cow," to which I say "Who the heck are you calling a cow??"
Still waiting to hear from Shirley...
-Amina
Well still though adultry isn't THAT common to be an issue of worry on if our partner has done it before.
Course fornication is still an issue which is the other meaning of Zina an so I wanna know what 243 means. Is that after the punishment 242 has happened or in general anyone who has done it before cause then it would be rather very hard for us.
-
Unfortunately HIV does not become obsolete when someone gets married
Do you REALLY believe that a "person's past is obsolete"? I see people saying this time and time again, yet each and every time the whole thing ends in tears as the party at fault cheats yet again. It has never worked this way in human history, it will not work that way on judgement day so why do you think it will work for you as if you are some kind of golden exception? Everybody's past deeds is what makes themselves the being they are today, which is why over and over again, God says 'except those who repent and refrain from any further evil'.
If anyone wishes to marry an idolater/adulterer then do so, that is your individual will. But under no circumstances please try to distort the very plain, very obvious warning that God gives us.
Also refer to the beginning verses of ch23. If you think there is a distinction between 'adultery' and 'fornication' quranically then present your evidence. Otherwise remain aware of 236, 237.
Salam IAMOP
HIV is a disease, what does that have to do with the way a person thinks/acts?
You ask me if a persons past is obsolete and I answer you by saying absolutely YES.....If....I choose to love and marry a person I accept all the "bad" things they have done in the past. If the person in question continues to cheat I am the only one to blame for trusting such a person. If I choose to trust a thief with my money I must accept he has put his criminal career behind him. If he steals my money I am to blame for trusting him. If I put my hand in a tigers mouth I am to blame if I lose it..........Now I am a bitter man that does not trust anyone so I wouldnt trust a woman who has a history of cheating further than I can throw her, but if I would choose to trust her I must forgive and forget her past. I cannot walk around with doubt in my heart, could you?
And surprise surprise, there are people out there who actually stay true to eachother. Some do it out of love, some out of respect, and some out of their belief in Allah. One day you might notice them......I think the reason you see a lot of cheating does not necessarily mean that it is in "our nature" to cheat. I think it has more to do with people committing themselves to marriage before they are mature enough to live in monogamy.
And yes there is a unbelievable difference between adultery and fornication, adultery is punishable but fornication is not. But looking into the Quran will not help you find the answer, first you must find out what the real difference is. I am happy to share my view but in a different thread.
If anyone wishes to marry an idolater/adulterer then do so, that is your individual will. But under no circumstances please try to distort the very plain, very obvious warning that God gives us.
Please explain this one more time, you mean Allah is warning us that a cheater will always be a cheater and an polytheist will alwyas be an polytheist?
-
Sigh... as I said its about people who FORNICATED AKA had sex before marriage as in what is rather common in the west. So please stick by that topic here which fornication is another meaning of Zina.
Salam brother
Sorry, I missed the subject heading, now I see it says "fornicators"..........so the answer is therefore no, it is not forbidden to marry a fornicator as per your definition of what fornication means.
I havent read all your posts, but it seems you are implying that the fornication being practiced in the West can be directly translated into the Arabic "zina". This is a misjudgement because zina encompasses many meanings whilst fornication means only one thing, and that is "couple not legally bound by marriage involved in a sexual relation". What you are describing as what is going on in the West is not fornication, it is promiscuity.
The popular definition of zina is unlawful sex. So what unlawful sex is happening in the West? What are you basing what is unlawful and what is not? The truth is there is no defintion of zina that would be viable in every culture in every corner of the world. By not giving us the definition Allah has shown us that we as different tribes and nations must all by ourselves decide what boundaries we need in order for our society to function. We do however have a upper limit, a clear warning that if we let our sexual nature take command Allah will punish us (story of Lot).
Taking this into consideration 243 is not directed towards the fornicator, it is directed towards the one who has unlawful sex (and polytheism). The definition of zina is what society has chosen it to be. For example in my society it means adultery, pedophilia, necrophilia, incest, bestiality and until not long ago, homosexuality.
Of course there is also the personal definition of zina. Just because society says a fornicator is a-ok does not mean you must accept marrying a fornicator eventhough you dont want to. You have your own definition, you must follow what you believe is right. As long as you do not impose your definition on someone else you have the freedom to think what you want. -
Salam brother
Sorry, I missed the subject heading, now I see it says "fornicators"..........so the answer is therefore no, it is not forbidden to marry a fornicator as per your definition of what fornication means.
I havent read all your posts, but it seems you are implying that the fornication being practiced in the West can be directly translated into the Arabic "zina". This is a misjudgement because zina encompasses many meanings whilst fornication means only one thing, and that is "couple not legally bound by marriage involved in a sexual relation". What you are describing as what is going on in the West is not fornication, it is promiscuity.
The popular definition of zina is unlawful sex. So what unlawful sex is happening in the West? What are you basing what is unlawful and what is not? The truth is there is no defintion of zina that would be viable in every culture in every corner of the world. By not giving us the definition Allah has shown us that we as different tribes and nations must all by ourselves decide what boundaries we need in order for our society to function. We do however have a upper limit, a clear warning that if we let our sexual nature take command Allah will punish us (story of Lot).
Taking this into consideration 243 is not directed towards the fornicator, it is directed towards the one who has unlawful sex (and polytheism). The definition of zina is what society has chosen it to be. For example in my society it means adultery, pedophilia, necrophilia, incest, bestiality and until not long ago, homosexuality.
Of course there is also the personal definition of zina. Just because society says a fornicator is a-ok does not mean you must accept marrying a fornicator eventhough you dont want to. You have your own definition, you must follow what you believe is right. As long as you do not impose your definition on someone else you have the freedom to think what you want.Problem is that Quranically we are to only have sex with the one we have married thus anything further is unlawful sex and thus what Zina is usually defined as. Fornication is sex before marriage and that is what happens commonly in the west.
However 243 I want to know as a result is if we indeed can't go with one who has done zina or not (which would be rather hard for someone in the west as most do fornicate) or if thats only a continuation of 242s definition. However I have seen some people say 243 is only talking about adultery which I have not seen too much evidence to explain why.
Regardless I am still rather confused on this issue.
-
What is marriage? Many couples in the west that technically would be considered as fornication are de facto marriages. Many couples live together and function as married couples, so they are married couples. They are not hiding, they have entered a commitment.
Another thing, like emil says is promiscuity, but I think it is a gross error to bundle everything in a big bag with the label zina. People who knowingly live together and share life and even have children, are married couples. Who is being deceived? The lack of a certain paper? People married before there was any paper in the world. Marriage has not been invented with civil registries and courts. The formulas administering it may have evolved and complicated, but the fact is still the same.
Salaam
-
Can you clarify please?
Yes, the one exception to that rule is when they repent and refrain from committing such a deed ever again. That's the definition of repentance after all. However if they do not repent then they have exalted their desire to the level of ilah over themselves. So you see them being compared with polytheists by God. Of a group of people, some will repent and mend. The rest will never repent and they will blindly wander on. In that case alone a cheater is always a cheater, a polytheist is always a polytheist. These ones are forbidden to marry for believers.
Aryan Warrior Please check your quran; the verse cited is 245. There is no miswrite. Yet still, paraphrasing 'repent and do good' still perfectly translates to 'repent and not do evil'.
Regardless, the command is to refrain from union with any person who holds the status of 'zani' whether or not they have been punished for it. Just like if you know someone has murdered someone else, you avoid them too regardless of judicial punishment. People do falsely accuse others however which is a separate case, and you would be commanded to investigate carefully as per 496. The four witness requirement is for certitude of justice but you must be aware
- Say the things that my Lord hath indeed forbidden are shameful deeds, whether open or secret; sins and trespasses against truth or reason; (cut)
Then to follow
- Bad women are for bad men and bad men are for bad women. Good women are for good men and good men are for good women
So I hope that is a clear self-evident proof that it does not matter whether they have been punished, but rather whether they actually DID the act or not.
Emil The evil is in forgiving someone who God the most wise, forgiving and merciful himself did not forgive (604).
And the soul (nafs) and Him Who made it perfect,
Then He inspired it to understand what is right and wrong for it;
He will indeed be successful who purifies it,
And he will indeed fail who corrupts it.Anyone who is not actively purifying their 'nafs' is certainly stagnating or moving towards evil because
Nor do I absolve my own self (of blame) the (human) soul is certainly prone to evil, (cut)
Peace