5:101
-
Today one man could have alleged Zina and asked for DNA or a medical test to prove his allegation. I'm not seeing where you're going with this in regards to why we need four eye witnesses instead of a DNA or a medical test to prove he slept with the woman? Is there a better way to put it across perhaps, since I don't get what your point is?
Yes it can be done to prove the allegation when so provided in the statute book.
The Law Book, Qur'aan has given the procedure for proving a charge of Zina against a man and woman.
The courts proceed according to the procedure prescribed in the statute and the law of evidence. -
I think that for zine, the four witnesses cannot be done away with, and if there are not four witnesses of the very fact, no other proof whould be considered to prove zina.
For other purposes, like determining filiation it may be, but not for zina. As yet ADB has not eyes to see wthether two people did the thing voluntarily and without coertion or without being drugged. Other things may be prooved, like murder or rape, but not zina. The Qur'an makes a special case of that and is too conclusively formulated to allow any other means of proof. Adn to charge zina on the strength of ADN would amount to slander and make the accuser liable to 80 lashes for false testimony if no four witnesses can be brought forth.
Salaam
-
Yes it can be done to prove the allegation when so provided in the statute book.
The Law Book, Qur'aan has given the procedure for proving a charge of Zina against a man and woman.
The courts proceed according to the procedure prescribed in the statute and the law of evidence.According to this, medical tests/DNA evidence etc can't be used in a zina case because it's not mentioned as a procedure in the quran. Okay. In your earlier posts you were trying to make a point "One can understand today why four eye witnessess are required for establishing the charge of Zinna against a woman and man. If circumstantial or scientific evidence was allowed, today one man could have alleged Zina and could have asked for DNA or medical test to prove his allegation."
I think what is causing the confusion here is that you think it is to protect the rights of the 'consenting loving couple' from the jealous beans or whoever is out there wanting to cause trouble for the couple. So, in your view the couple will be protected (even if we take your definition of what zina is) because of the lack of 4 eye witnesses, it is a good thing in your view because the one asking the questions would cause embarrassment and trouble for the couple (i.e. if it isn't one of the two involved). I think this is what your point was before, correct me if I'm wrong.
The way you understand zina a consented, affectionate, loving affair of a man and woman, why do we need 4 witnesses when it can be proven with, say scientific evidence if one brings it to court? Like you mentioned in your posts, it's to save face in one example, i.e. declining a DNA test. I'm sure it would be very troublesome for the father to acknowledge his child, but for a system to condone such behavior or as in your view, encourage sweeping under the blanket questions that one has the right to know, or answers that bring them the truth or closer to it...I can't possibly accept as examples. More so, people questioning who their father is, and the answers turn them into rejectors? Unless the father is Hitler, alright.
If it can be proven using scientific evidence, isn't our goal to get to the truth as much as we can if something is brought to a court of law? In either case, a consented, affectionate, loving affair between a man and a woman is nobody's business but their own is it, unless they are letting people watch them for kicks or money. I would hardly call that an affectionate loving affair between a man and a woman, it seems to be a sexual orgy with the neighbourhood more like.
Personally, I find the 4 eye witnesses requirement dealing with something that is a public menace rather than an 'affectionate loving relationship between a man and woman' (in private meaning no witnesses watching the sex, even if they know they may be sleeping together). This has been discussed on the board before and makes the most sense. Also, why I asked about the lone person squealing to the law? Unless they have rights that are being threatened, it makes no sense. Rights such as that of a child etc, in which case there should be an inquiry and whatever legal means used to get to the truth of the matter etc. It certainly can't be a zina case however since you don't have 4 eye witnesses. You may have 10 people standing up in court saying 'we think they may have had sex because we peeked at their msg's and they keep sxting each other on their phones, but we haven't seen them do it'...and it still wouldn't be a zina case would it.
-
According to this, medical tests/DNA evidence etc can't be used in a zina case because it's not mentioned as a procedure in the quran. Okay. In your earlier posts you were trying to make a point "One can understand today why four eye witnessess are required for establishing the charge of Zinna against a woman and man. If circumstantial or scientific evidence was allowed, today one man could have alleged Zina and could have asked for DNA or medical test to prove his allegation."
I think what is causing the confusion here is that you think it is to protect the rights of the 'consenting loving couple' from the jealous beans or whoever is out there wanting to cause trouble for the couple. So, in your view the couple will be protected (even if we take your definition of what zina is) because of the lack of 4 eye witnesses, it is a good thing in your view because the one asking the questions would cause embarrassment and trouble for the couple (i.e. if it isn't one of the two involved). I think this is what your point was before, correct me if I'm wrong.
The way you understand zina a consented, affectionate, loving affair of a man and woman, why do we need 4 witnesses when it can be proven with, say scientific evidence if one brings it to court? Like you mentioned in your posts, it's to save face in one example, i.e. declining a DNA test. I'm sure it would be very troublesome for the father to acknowledge his child, but for a system to condone such behavior or as in your view, encourage sweeping under the blanket questions that one has the right to know, or answers that bring them the truth or closer to it...I can't possibly accept as examples. More so, people questioning who their father is, and the answers turn them into rejectors? Unless the father is Hitler, alright.
If it can be proven using scientific evidence, isn't our goal to get to the truth as much as we can if something is brought to a court of law? In either case, a consented, affectionate, loving affair between a man and a woman is nobody's business but their own is it, unless they are letting people watch them for kicks or money. I would hardly call that an affectionate loving affair between a man and a woman, it seems to be a sexual orgy with the neighbourhood more like.
Personally, I find the 4 eye witnesses requirement dealing with something that is a public menace rather than an 'affectionate loving relationship between a man and woman' (in private meaning no witnesses watching the sex, even if they know they may be sleeping together). This has been discussed on the board before and makes the most sense. Also, why I asked about the lone person squealing to the law? Unless they have rights that are being threatened, it makes no sense. Rights such as that of a child etc, in which case there should be an inquiry and whatever legal means used to get to the truth of the matter etc. It certainly can't be a zina case however since you don't have 4 eye witnesses. You may have 10 people standing up in court saying 'we think they may have had sex because we peeked at their msg's and they keep sxting each other on their phones, but we haven't seen them do it'...and it still wouldn't be a zina case would it.
I think that is right. And also goes to show the wisdom of Qur'an by setting proof of zina beyond most possibilities. The thrust of the measure is clear and is well shown in the following ayas to avoid that believers eat the flesh of believers with malicious gossip, destroying families on rumors and particularly destroy women with mere words.
By proteting the intimacy of zanis and preventing people from eating their brethren flesh, Qur'an does not mean to condone zina, so if with time there come ways to prove filiation and that sets in a bad light certain situations, that is too bad. People should be responsible of their deeds. One thing is to protect their intimacy, another thing is free them of their responsiblity as adults. Of course, the "wrong" adn may stem from no guilt, but then there is always the possibility of telling the truth.
Salaam
-
I continue
It isnot so pleasant the same as with adoptions. There is nothing wrong with adopting, therefore, why make it a secret? Knowing true filiation is important for many diseases, and truth is always better than living in figment. The Qur'an always opts for truth and maturity. We should be able to face not so pleasant truths, like divorce, as a fact of life and accept it with dignity and without being buried in guilt. That we are not perfect we already know and accept, so why shoudl out of this adn or that a fuss be made or even a tragedy? Any sound relationship rests usually on truthfulness and acknowledgement of reality.
Salaam
-
I think that is right. And also goes to show the wisdom of Qur'an by setting proof of zina beyond most possibilities. The thrust of the measure is clear and is well shown in the following ayas to avoid that believers eat the flesh of believers with malicious gossip, destroying families on rumors and particularly destroy women with mere words.
By proteting the intimacy of zanis and preventing people from eating their brethren flesh, Qur'an does not mean to condone zina, so if with time there come ways to prove filiation and that sets in a bad light certain situations, that is too bad. People should be responsible of their deeds. One thing is to protect their intimacy, another thing is free them of their responsiblity as adults. Of course, the "wrong" adn may stem from no guilt, but then there is always the possibility of telling the truth.
Salaam
I continue
It isnot so pleasant the same as with adoptions. There is nothing wrong with adopting, therefore, why make it a secret? Knowing true filiation is important for many diseases, and truth is always better than living in figment. The Qur'an always opts for truth and maturity. We should be able to face not so pleasant truths, like divorce, as a fact of life and accept it with dignity and without being buried in guilt. That we are not perfect we already know and accept, so why shoudl out of this adn or that a fuss be made or even a tragedy? Any sound relationship rests usually on truthfulness and acknowledgement of reality.
Salaam
Agreed. Particularly like that you bring up truth, maturity and facts of life. One of the ways a system can change from stigmatizing divorced and single mothers due to circumstances for example, towards reducing the irrelevant noise and ridiculous penalties negative to their well being and giving support in a good way is by adopting the way it is in the quran, leaving aside our notions of things we never bring up in polite society without tsking and being condescending (one's cultural mileage may vary) and to bring them up in a way that is actually worthwhile for the vast majority of issues we have socially. That can be done when our mindsets change towards truth, maturity and the facts of life, making systems work for maximum positive development.
It's a fine line between public and private when you involve laws that are enforceable. I would say that laws with penalties are dealing with the public sphere, when they infringe on the rights of others rather than a private/individual thing which may involve something that harms themselves and how that plays out in terms of their development and so on. We do have certain freedoms privately which we may use for good or ill, and as long as that is not affecting another in terms of any rights...as in a private relationship between consenting adults for example, it is their business and between them and God. It could be that it is bad for them, but it's not for the public to intrude in any way unless it develops into something that becomes a public matter.
-
Personally, I find the 4 eye witnesses requirement dealing with something that is a public menace rather than an 'affectionate loving relationship between a man and woman' (in private meaning no witnesses watching the sex, even if they know they may be sleeping together).
Protection of right of Privacy is taken care. A man and woman indulging in illicit sex beyond the eyes of people are not to be alleged for criminal cognizance by the society. Anybody who lodges a complaint alleging illicit sex is made responsible to bring four eye witnesses otherwise will get 80 lashes. In many societies a mere allegation of such nature suffices to make the life of a man or woman miserable.
Even informally saying about commission of such an act, not going formally to the police/court, and passing on the gossip is prohibited in Qur'aan.
Even a husband who might have seen his wife in illict state with another man is not allowed to ask for the medical examination of his wife. Honour of women is a delicate issue and is protected.
-
Protection of right of Privacy is taken care. A man and woman indulging in illicit sex beyond the eyes of people are not to be alleged for criminal cognizance by the society. Anybody who lodges a complaint alleging illicit sex is made responsible to bring four eye witnesses otherwise will get 80 lashes. In many societies a mere allegation of such nature suffices to make the life of a man or woman miserable.
Even informally saying about commission of such an act, not going formally to the police/court, and passing on the gossip is prohibited in Qur'aan.
Even a husband who might have seen his wife in illict state with another man is not allowed to ask for the medical examination of his wife. Honour of women is a delicate issue and is protected.
Let's say there's a scenario where the husband/wife cheats and the spouse is an eye witness. Can the cheated spouse give evidence regarding this? Let's say their eye witness testimony is nullified by the cheater saying it's a lie. Is that the end of it or are there any other options? Can the spouse use for example, recorded evidence using technology to prove their testimony? Can a divorce in your opinion allow for these options to grant the aggrieved party a better settlement and so on? Or is the settlement always equal/following a set format regardless of any betrayals?
-
Let's say there's a scenario where the husband/wife cheats and the spouse is an eye witness. Can the cheated spouse give evidence regarding this? Let's say their eye witness testimony is nullified by the cheater saying it's a lie. Is that the end of it or are there any other options? Can the spouse use for example, recorded evidence using technology to prove their testimony? Can a divorce in your opinion allow for these options to grant the aggrieved party a better settlement and so on? Or is the settlement always equal/following a set format regardless of any betrayals?
Allegation by spouse is also mentioned
And those husbands who allege a charge of illicit sex respectively upon their wives while they had no eye witnesses to produce in court of law except respectively their own selves;
In such case the testimony of each such complainant is respectively four testimonies under oath by the name of Allah the Exalted
To the effect that indeed he is certainly of those who state nothing but truth;
And the fifth testimony is to the effect that the Curse and Condemnation of Allah the Exalted be upon him if he was of those who are the liars.Please note the implications of the fifth testimony. He is self agreeing to be thrown in Hell-Prison in the Hereafter life. If he does this in the court of jurisdiction, the complainant succeeds in establishing the alleged charge. But the court cannot give the verdict without listening the accused
And it will repel-remove away from her the punishment prescribed for the offence that she submits four testimonies under oath by the name of Allah the Exalted
To the effect that indeed he is certainly of those who are the liars.
And the fifth testimony is to the effect that the Curse and Condemnation of Allah the Exalted be upon her if he were of those who state nothing but truth.If it happens, the case stands closed. Charge not established. No other evidence is admissible. The question is not the availability of evidence, it must be admissible by law also.
-
Allegation by spouse is also mentioned
And those husbands who allege a charge of illicit sex respectively upon their wives while they had no eye witnesses to produce in court of law except respectively their own selves;
In such case the testimony of each such complainant is respectively four testimonies under oath by the name of Allah the Exalted
To the effect that indeed he is certainly of those who state nothing but truth;
And the fifth testimony is to the effect that the Curse and Condemnation of Allah the Exalted be upon him if he was of those who are the liars.Please note the implications of the fifth testimony. He is self agreeing to be thrown in Hell-Prison in the Hereafter life. If he does this in the court of jurisdiction, the complainant succeeds in establishing the alleged charge. But the court cannot give the verdict without listening the accused
And it will repel-remove away from her the punishment prescribed for the offence that she submits four testimonies under oath by the name of Allah the Exalted
To the effect that indeed he is certainly of those who are the liars.
And the fifth testimony is to the effect that the Curse and Condemnation of Allah the Exalted be upon her if he were of those who state nothing but truth.If it happens, the case stands closed. Charge not established. No other evidence is admissible. The question is not the availability of evidence, it must be admissible by law also.
Yes, that's why I brought up the nullification. So even if we have evidence of guilt to back up our testimony, it is inadmissible because...it's not in the quran and/or husband/wives testimonies are nullified if they are divergent and can only be testimonies and nothing else. Thus, cheating in a marriage is something that can never be brought to light legally even if we have proof...except those that admit to it, of course. I take it, the answers to the divorce settlements are always equal/following a set format regardless of any betrayals then.
Following this scenario, say the cheater has a child with another woman, and the wife says he's cheated, the guy says he didn't... we can verify this by testing the child but we can't do this. Only testimonies are admissible...? Somehow I see why you thought the politician was being protected. In this mad world sometimes it so happens that the guy would divorce the wife blithely, marry the other woman and adopt his child legally, while the ex-wife watches the evidence of the cheating bastard every night on her phone before going to sleep with his voodoo doll. Surreal.
-
Following this scenario, say the cheater has a child with another woman, and the wife says he's cheated, the guy says he didn't... we can verify this by testing the child but we can't do this. Only testimonies are admissible...?
This could lead to what is termed "fasad" in Arabic. The other child is recognized by a father who is the husband of that woman with whom the husband of another woman had allegedly illicit relation and that child was the result of that illicit relationship. Too many people will get involved. Had there been not the four witnesses condition as the only admissible evidence, such "fasad" could be everyday phenomenon in many muslim societies. Too many complications then.
-
This could lead to what is termed "fasad" in Arabic. The other child is recognized by a father who is the husband of that woman with whom the husband of another woman had allegedly illicit relation and that child was the result of that illicit relationship. Too many people will get involved. Had there been not the four witnesses condition as the only admissible evidence, such "fasad" could be everyday phenomenon in many muslim societies. Too many complications then.
Because too many people can get involved we sweep it under the rug? Okay. What if the woman has no husband? Any opinion on single mothers in the light of the quran?
-
Because too many people can get involved we sweep it under the rug? Okay. What if the woman has no husband? Any opinion on single mothers in the light of the quran?
A woman can come to know that she is pregnant without ever have consiously indulged in sex with a man. Sperms can be injected into her womb when she is unconsious or put to deep sleep without there any ------. How would one prove that it is not the case if the lady insists she did not have sex with a man?
You people are hereby directed to call them-adopted youngsters by their respective Fathers.
This is most appropriate and balanced conduct in the judgment of Allah the Exalted.
However, if you know not the Fathers of them, thereby, they are your brothers in the Prescribed Code and Physical Procedure ;
And they are your Beneficiaries. -
A woman can come to know that she is pregnant without ever have consiously indulged in sex with a man. Sperms can be injected into her womb when she is unconsious or put to deep sleep without there any ------. How would one prove that it is not the case if the lady insists she did not have sex with a man?
I'm not asking about exceptional scenarios like you bring up, the scenario was that the single woman was lucid and willing when she had sex with a married man then got pregnant, and the wife saw it. In your opinion, what light does the quran shed on this scenario...? Does the man get away with it even if the other woman is silent? Does the baby not have any rights other than what the parents decide? Should the courts look out for the rights of the child and the rights of the betrayed? Your explanation suggests that if the man is a liar even under oath, that's it...end of. -
5101 O you who believe, do not ask about things which, if revealed to you, would harm you; and if you ask about them after the Qur'an has been sent down, then they will become clear to you. God pardons for them, and God is Forgiving, Compassionate.
5102 A people before you had asked the same, then they became rejecters in it.There was another thread dealing with the same a while back but I didn't find an explanation that satisfies. It's commonly used to shut down questioning in regards to religious matters. Wondering if anyone has analysed the verses before and what they think it's talking about or a link to where it's been discussed well. Will the questions become clear or the reasoning behind why we aren't supposed to ask them? Also, what is meant by "became rejecters in it"?
Any insights/help appreciated. Thanks.
Salaam,
RED The reason is given in 5102 "A people before you had asked the same, then they became rejecters in it."
GREEN They disobeyed the command of their Lord.
Salaam,
Bender -
Salaam,
RED The reason is given in 5102 "A people before you had asked the same, then they became rejecters in it."
GREEN They disobeyed the command of their Lord.
Salaam,
BenderAl Bender, I'll try to put it in a clearer way...I was asking if the questions that were being asked ( = if revealed to you would harm you) were going to be answered after/during? (not sure what the consensus is on what the right word is here) the quran has been sent down or the reasoning behind why we shouldn't be asking such questions (= if revealed to you would harm you) be clear after/during the quran has been sent down. If we knew the questions would harm us, why would we still seek answers unless we were self destructive...? But if we were more aware of the reasons for asking said questions and the possible ramifications we'd understand? Thus, can it be referring to something other than the fact that it's not the questions/questioning but the mindset behind the questions...? So were these questions going to be answered let's just say by the quran, or the reasoning behind why the questions are being left open ended or whatever also by the quran. The fact that we are pardoned for asking them, but then a people before us had asked the same and became rejecters, begs the question whether it was the answers or the line of reasoning behind the inquiries that did them in. If it was the answers, I find it hard to accept that the truth can make one a rejecter, hence must be the line of reasoning/mindset behind the questions. A little knowledge being a dangerous thing also comes to mind.
-
I'm not asking about exceptional scenarios like you bring up, the scenario was that the single woman was lucid and willing when she had sex with a married man then got pregnant, and the wife saw it. In your opinion, what light does the quran shed on this scenario...? Does the man get away with it even if the other woman is silent? Does the baby not have any rights other than what the parents decide? Should the courts look out for the rights of the child and the rights of the betrayed? Your explanation suggests that if the man is a liar even under oath, that's it...end of.
In husband and wife scenario the complainant is the husband and the accused is his wife. It is not otherway round.
In the quoted scenario, oaths are not involved. Ground reality 1. Husband and wife, socially known as legally wed; 2. Another woman about whom the legally wed wife believes that she is engaged in illicit sex with her husband; 3. A child is with the other woman about whom legally wed wife believes to be the child born of her husband.
Legally wed wife is not sure whether or not the other woman is her husband's "keep" or a second wife. She cannot allege charge of Zina nominating as accused her husband and other lady since she does not have four eye witnessess. She can take recourse to other penal-social laws of the society; as in Pakistan she can complaint that her husband is keeping another woman without having taken her consent. The state will take cognizance and investigate the matter and decide the matter.
-
In husband and wife scenario the complainant is the husband and the accused is his wife. It is not otherway round.
In the quoted scenario, oaths are not involved. Ground reality 1. Husband and wife, socially known as legally wed; 2. Another woman about whom the legally wed wife believes that she is engaged in illicit sex with her husband; 3. A child is with the other woman about whom legally wed wife believes to be the child born of her husband.
Legally wed wife is not sure whether or not the other woman is her husband's "keep" or a second wife. She cannot allege charge of Zina nominating as accused her husband and other lady since she does not have four eye witnessess. She can take recourse to other penal-social laws of the society; as in Pakistan she can complaint that her husband is keeping another woman without having taken her consent. The state will take cognizance and investigate the matter and decide the matter.
So oaths would not be needed in this case or you think that the scenario didn't mention oaths thus they aren't involved? 2 as you put it is not in the scenario, 2 would be legally wed wife sees her husband and the other woman having sex. Thus legally wed wife is relatively sure that her husband can be the father of the other woman's child. The other woman could have had sex with other men as well, yes, but the chances of her husband being the father of the other woman's child cannot be nullified unless there is proof that the child isn't his. Of course, this isn't zina. I was asking what options in the light of the quran does the wife have besides testimonies that may be divergent. This is a betrayal unless it was previously agreed that the husband can have sex with other people. In Pakistan, the husband will probably get away with it, it's when the woman is accused is when it becomes more of an issue. But wait, you're saying ONLY a man can be a complainant and not the wife in a husband/wife scenario?
Allegation by spouse is also mentionedAnd those husbands who allege a charge of illicit sex respectively upon their wives while they had no eye witnesses to produce in court of law except respectively their own selves;
This would come under what heading in your view? Zina? Adultery? A combination of the two put under one term zina? Or totally not any of the preceding? And to reconfirm, only husbands can bring allegations of illicit sex upon their wives if they have no eye witnesses? Wives need not apply?
I asked you why a 'loving consented affectionate relationship between a man and woman' is what you term as zina? It's obvious that affairs of the sort do not have 4 eye witnesses, it is obvious that it is dealing with a public menace because if one or both of them are seen having sex 4 times by different individuals, it cannot be a 'loving consented affectionate relationship between a man and a woman'. It's as if it is irrelevant to put that detailed procedure in there when it's never going to be used in cases of 'loving consented affectionate relationships between men and women' as those are pretty commonplace in private even in cultures where the norms are that sex is not a shameful act (even when not married). Unless of course you opine that there was a time when such loving affectionate consented affairs between a man and a woman were commonplace in public because privacy as a concept did not exist. Hopefully, that is something that you or anyone else won't bring up.
-
I asked you why a 'loving consented affectionate relationship between a man and woman'
Perhaps I said this in comparison to rape issue. Zina is a loving, affectionately consented intercourse between a man and woman who are not legally husband and wife. While rape is forced intercourse by one party, the other is the victim.