5:101

savage_carrot

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 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;

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.

Mazhar

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.

Noon_waalqalami

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.

Peace Mazhar,

What about consensual prostitution (affectionate or not), any punishment?

single man - single woman
single man - married woman
married man - single woman
married man - married woman
single woman - single woman
single woman - married woman
married woman - married woman
single man - single man
single man - married man
married man - married man

Likewise married couple affectionately in a park or the beach having intercourse or "other" would that be zina?

Mazhar

Peace Mazhar,

What about consensual prostitution (affectionate or not), any punishment?

single man - single woman
single man - married woman
married man - single woman
married man - married woman
single woman - single woman
single woman - married woman
married woman - married woman
single man - single man
single man - married man
married man - married man

Likewise married couple affectionately in a park or the beach having intercourse or "other" would that be zina?

Salam,

No worldly penal clause for sex in privacies is given in Qur'aan, as I recall---all numbered propositions. Only a husband can allege about his wife sexual misconduct in her privacy and process of criminal justice in this case is prescribed.

A husband and wife indulging in intercourse before the eyes of public is Fahashi not Zina. State can prescribe deterrent punishment for such public offences pl refer 2419

Fahashi is prohibited
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/006.%20Al%20Anaam/temp%2002%206.151.gif
"And that you should not approach towards illicit sexual attractions; that which have become publicly known places about it, and also those which are secretive.

http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/007.%20Al%20Airaaf/Temp%2001%207.033.gif
You the Messenger pronounce "The fact is that my Sustainer Lord has only prohibited illicit sexual attractions; that which have become publicly known places - modes about it, and also those which are secretive;

savage_carrot

A husband and wife indulging in intercourse before the eyes of public is Fahashi not Zina.
Basically, Mazhar thinks that zina is an unmarried affectionate loving couple indulging in sex 'in privacy with 4 eye witnesses'. An unmarried couple indulging in intercourse before the eyes of the public should also be termed Fahashi otherwise, but IF they do it in 'private with 4 eye witnesses', it apparently is zina...? This doesn't cover adultery in the case of one of the two being married, however. Unless Mazhar would like to clarify if that is included in zina, fahashi or whether there is another term for it, or there is no term for it.

A husband and wife indulging in intercourse before the eyes of public is Fahashi not Zina.

6151/733 is what is apparent and what is concealed of the fawahisha. Would having sex in public thus satisfy the fahashi clause regardless of who is doing it? I would say yes. Why make it unmarried/married when no specifications are mentioned in terms of who is specifically involved in these fawahisha's. Further, if in the translations helpfully provided, there are 'publicaly known places and secretive places', what is public if not 4 witnesses...? Do the verses explicitly talk about and list public and private places regardless of the number of people...or what is apparent and what is concealed? Apparent to whom? Concealed from whom?

Public in the context would mean the presence of people (obviously not in the context of public property or anything else; if no one saw what you did, the fawahisha's are concealed) and secret would mean in the absence of people that aren't involved in the act. Your bedroom can be public with 4 witnesses if you invite them in, suddenly surprisingly dropping your pants, jumping on your willing and kinky partner in crime; going at it in front of 4 shocked and at this point, mildly terrified people musing they may be next...the sidewalk can be private if no one sees you do the same. It's not as much fun however. So, how exactly are we determining what is public and private unless it is about the people involved other than the ones doing it...? It can be just once with 4 different people, or however many times as long as there are 4 witnesses for an incident.

Hopefully, there won't be a response dealing with the strange nuances of how the particular words are magically codified to only mean pavements, restaurants etc or bedrooms and toilets etc. I've been down that road before, it wasn't pretty.

Man_of_Faith

Peace,

I thought you were discussing 5101 and the subsequent passages and not imaginary adultery punishment?

Be whole

savage_carrot

There were no further responses regarding the topic, when there are, I'll discuss them. The present discussion has gone towards zina because of an example used while posting about the topic, I don't see it as a problem since some people are slower to post than others, various things get talked about in the meanwhile. I personally find it of interest. Do you have anything to add to 'imaginary adultery punishment'...? If not, that's okay.

Man_of_Faith

Peace,

Okay, savage_carrot. Then I know.

I do not have anything else to add regarding the 5101 and surrounding passages.

Be whole

Mazhar

Basically, Mazhar thinks that zina is an unmarried affectionate loving couple indulging in sex 'in privacy with 4 eye witnesses'. An unmarried couple indulging in intercourse before the eyes of the public should also be termed Fahashi otherwise, but IF they do it in 'private with 4 eye witnesses', it apparently is zina...? This doesn't cover adultery in the case of one of the two being married, however. Unless Mazhar would like to clarify if that is included in zina, fahashi or whether there is another term for it, or there is no term for it.
6151/733 is what is apparent and what is concealed of the fawahisha. Would having sex in public thus satisfy the fahashi clause regardless of who is doing it? I would say yes. Why make it unmarried/married when no specifications are mentioned in terms of who is specifically involved in these fawahisha's. Further, if in the translations helpfully provided, there are 'publicaly known places and secretive places', what is public if not 4 witnesses...? Do the verses explicitly talk about and list public and private places regardless of the number of people...or what is apparent and what is concealed? Apparent to whom? Concealed from whom?

Public in the context would mean the presence of people (obviously not in the context of public property or anything else; if no one saw what you did, the fawahisha's are concealed) and secret would mean in the absence of people that aren't involved in the act. Your bedroom can be public with 4 witnesses if you invite them in, suddenly surprisingly dropping your pants, jumping on your willing and kinky partner in crime; going at it in front of 4 shocked and at this point, mildly terrified people musing they may be next...the sidewalk can be private if no one sees you do the same. It's not as much fun however. So, how exactly are we determining what is public and private unless it is about the people involved other than the ones doing it...? It can be just once with 4 different people, or however many times as long as there are 4 witnesses for an incident.

Hopefully, there won't be a response dealing with the strange nuances of how the particular words are magically codified to only mean pavements, restaurants etc or bedrooms and toilets etc. I've been down that road before, it wasn't pretty.

First step in understanding and comprehending about any issue is to understand the meanings of an individual word. Understanding a word means that one immediately perceives the propositions which are referred by that word. When we say "woman" we associate with this word that the referred object belongs to human species, adult, Not man, has chest of peculiar shape, and many other features. All those are inherent in the same word, they need not be mentioned separately.

http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Tabweeb%20Part%202/15.%20Roots%20originating%20in%20Surat%2017/11.%20Az%20Zina%20Ze%20Noon%20Ya/1.gif It is a Verbal Noun which refers only an action and a state. It denotes consented extramarital intercourse of a man with a woman; whether both are virgin, or one of them is unmarried or both are married to different spouses. It is reflected by English words fornication and adultery.

Nikah, marriage grants permission to a man and woman to enjoy intercourse. Though Qur'aan puts the condition to perform this intercourse in privacy and undisturbed state; some might opt to do it in drawing room and Khabis couple might do it even on a bench in a park. But it does not mean that it will become an act denoted by Zina.

Four witnesses is the issue of Admissibility of Evidence in criminal proceedings for the charge of Zina, it is not the proposition of word Zina.

For husband and wife
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/temp%2002%20%202.187f.gif
Therefore, after this clarification henceforth-now onwards undertake mutual-consented intercourse with them in the nights of fasting and you people seek its result that which Allah the Exalted has written for you people.

The verb is of Form-III, which reflects mutuality. Arabic is the most decent language of the world. It conveys that in the most sophisticated and subtle manner which if explained and exposed in any other language the nudity will over brim.
I could have used rather decent words "enjoy matrimonial relationship" but these could reflect as if it is one sided affair. Arabic word denotes two sided affair; Perhaps West aside, Muslim men in other societies are little aware that it is also their responsibility to carry the wife to the extreme. She mostly feigns extreme perhaps of inbuilt shyness or not to hurt "manly" proud of her husband.

savage_carrot

lol@ Khabis couple, that was awesome...been a long time since I heard that word laugh

Mazhar, at a very basic level, would you agree to zina being a subset of a fahisha in public (4 eye witnesses) between a couple having sexual intercourse...? I mean regardless of the rest, I find these types of discussions adding to the learning process, thank you for being detailed and patient.

Mazhar

lol@ Khabis couple, that was awesome...been a long time since I heard that word laugh

Mazhar, at a very basic level, would you agree to zina being a subset of a fahisha in public (4 eye witnesses) between a couple having sexual intercourse...? I mean regardless of the rest, I find these types of discussions adding to the learning process, thank you for being detailed and patient.

Zina is Fahashi, but it does not mean that Fahashi is Zina.

Zina is a restrictive verbal noun, intercourse between a man and woman outside the fold of Nikah-legally registered marriage. Pl note that marriage has three parties not two, third is the society/state, Otherwise what is the problem with gays to get legal sanction behind their act.

Fahashi is not necessarily and limited exclusively to illicit sex.

(&#1588 . .

The basic perception infolded in the Root is that of indulging in excessive, immoderate, or beyond measure with reference to generally or universally accepted norms, limits and measures of behaviour. The perception and meanings of the Root have built in subjective and relational element. Moreover, since the excessive, immoderate and extremist tendencies are universally looked upon with dislike, abomination, repulsiveness, and unacceptability, therefore, it has inherent negative element. For reason of builtin subjective and relational element, it is the context and related field which will determine and expose its meanings with reference to that context; and in definite state generally about the irrational, unnatural, obscene, pervert and excessively emotional sexual conduct.

Mazhar

lol@ Khabis couple, that was awesome...been a long time since I heard that word

The Women having characteristic psyche of conjecture and lust monger are best suited spouse for Men having characteristic psyche of conjecture and lust monger; and the Men having characteristic psyche of conjecture and lust monger are best suited spouse for Women having characteristic psyche of conjecture and lust monger;
And the Women having characteristic of morally and intellectually elevated are best suited spouse for Men having characteristic of morally and intellectually elevated; and Men having characteristic of morally and intellectually elevated are best suited spouse for Women having characteristic of morally and intellectually elevated.
These are the people who are secluded-distanced away-not effected from that which their opposites conjecture and lust mongers-majority of people keep saying.
The forgiveness and par excellence sustenance is assuredly promised and in wait for them.

savage_carrot

Zina is Fahashi, but it does not mean that Fahashi is Zina.
Agreed. Also agreed about khabis being attracted to khabis. Wanted to ask if in your study, you've come across any fahisha in public that does not have a 'legal' punishment in the quran? i.e. a penalty enforced by the state, for example. I'll get back to you with my reservations about the other things.

Mazhar

Agreed. Also agreed about khabis being attracted to khabis. Wanted to ask if in your study, you've come across any fahisha in public that does not have a 'legal' punishment in the quran? i.e. a penalty enforced by the state, for example. I'll get back to you with my reservations about the other things.

If I have correctly understood, then reply is in post 43 wherein punishment in the world is mentioned for making fahisha public in Islamic state which will be enforced by the state, whatever punishment they might decide, minus capital punishment.

Course of action against lesbianism and male homosexuality is also mentioned

Take note; Those of your women who allegedly gather for immoderate sexuality; lesbianism
Thereat. you are directed to produce four witnesses of good repute amongst you people to testify the allegation against them;
Thereby, if those witnesses testified establishing their guilt then for reason of conviction you people their family restrict-restrain them in their respective houses.
This restriction be kept till the death might cause their segregation-alienation;
Or Allah the Exalted makes some other course for them .

And those two males amongst you people who get together for that immoderate sexuality homosexuality, sodomy, lewd act Thereat having been noticed mutually indulging in sex relationship, you are directed to slightly punish both.
Sequel to punishment if they both have averted illicit habit and have adopted proper righteous course; thereat you are directed to divert attention away from both.
Fact remains; Allah the Exalted is repeatedly forgiving, the fountain of mercy.

savage_carrot

I meant if there is any fahisha in public that has no legal punishment per the quran by the state. The state can have their own penalties dealing with things etc, but not asking about those. In your view, is there a clear master list of fahisha as per the quran or can some of it be dependent on subjectivity/interpretation? e.g. someone using a sexually suggestive gesture with his hand in public.

Mazhar

I meant if there is any fahisha in public that has no legal punishment per the quran by the state. The state can have their own penalties dealing with things etc, but not asking about those. In your view, is there a clear master list of fahisha as per the quran or can some of it be dependent on subjectivity/interpretation? e.g. someone using a sexually suggestive gesture with his hand in public.

Sex is one of our biggest preoccupations ? causing thrills, heartache and downright confusion, as is put by a site explaining latest studies about what happens in the brain during sex. The brain initiates the process, and obviously brain becomes active only on receiving signals from receptors. A suggestive gesture will immediately be responded by the brain suggesting to make advances. Qur'aan advises controlling gaze, the strongest signal which might immediately release dopamine resulting and causing arousal-desire. All gestures inciting for sex are fahashi. Zahara and batana and the word fahshi itself incorporates everything that can become stimuli for illicit sex. This falls under sexual harrassment, if the other party is not willing to respond favourably.

savage_carrot

Yes, but a sexually suggestive gesture can be used as an angry sexually suggestive gesture. I don't think sexual desire is particularly involved if a car cuts you on the road and you raise your middle finger (or whatever passes for the same in different cultures) at the driver. If we were to call this fahashi since you're saying everything involving something sexual is fahashi (with those not willing to respond favourably), then verbal abuse using mothers and sisters also becomes fahashi, yes...? Catcalling doesn't have to involve explicit sexual references but can be understood to be a form of sexual harrassment. In which case would you say, that as per the quran the state must involve penalties for all such, make it a crime...?

Mazhar

Yes, but a sexually suggestive gesture can be used as an angry sexually suggestive gesture. I don't think sexual desire is particularly involved if a car cuts you on the road and you raise your middle finger (or whatever passes for the same in different cultures) at the driver. If we were to call this fahashi since you're saying everything involving something sexual is fahashi (with those not willing to respond favourably), then verbal abuse using mothers and sisters also becomes fahashi, yes...? Catcalling doesn't have to involve explicit sexual references but can be understood to be a form of sexual harrassment. In which case would you say, that as per the quran the state must involve penalties for all such, make it a crime...?

Let us not be naive. What are sex inciting gestures, these are known and understood by adults. No one will take signals for lift or help made towards a driver as sex signal; however if a lady shows her ---by taking away her shirt apart immediately on passing the car and the man sees it in the mirror, certainly he will take it as invitation.

savage_carrot

Let us not be naive. What are sex inciting gestures, these are known and understood by adults. No one will take signals for lift or help made towards a driver as sex signal; however if a lady shows her ---by taking away her shirt apart immediately on passing the car and the man sees it in the mirror, certainly he will take it as invitation.

Wasn't what I was asking but whatever. Is a fahisha as per the quran only dealing with sex in your view?

Apparently, your known sex inciting gestures/invitations can be misconstrued. Is it subjective to some extent? Of course it is. Yes, people can misconstrue a sign for help as a sexual come on, it's happened in Pakistan with a truck driver and a female car driver. Even asking a male student for help by a female student in school is construed as 'she wants me'. Even females driving cars with no gestures are considered sexually stimulating and thus must want sex because they are putting themselves out there without any males. Yes, it can be deliberately misconstrued, or it can be a symptom of the mindset that construes it. In the case with the truck driver, the reasoning was of course she wanted a man, that's why she was alone on the road without a male accompanying her and she flagged me down. Can we tear such rationalizations apart as ridiculous, of course we can. Does it change the way these events unfold or the realities? Not really.

Do subjective interpretations translate into criminal offenses punishable by the state as per the quran...? As per your example above a woman takes her shirt off in a different car while passing another car and the man sees it in the mirror. He will take it as an invitation...to what? I think you'll find that arousal rather than invitation may fit better generally. It may arouse him but is it going anywhere without any explicit invitation...? The woman could be hot (temperature wise) and taken her shirt off, she would have spilled something on it and couldn't stand wearing the shirt, whatever. Is the man sure it is a deliberate gesture and if he is taking it as an invitation, he is a willing participant. Sure, a guy could get aroused without being willing, but the buck would stop there and there should be no question of him taking it as an invitation.

The mindset here is dangerously close to a guy feeling that the woman wants sex should she show a part of her body. Like some Pakistani's abroad, omg she's showing her cleavage, she wants sex and will want sex with me...why, I do declare! it's open season. Invitations for all! Change that around to wearing a skirt and showing her legs. To a leg man, that's an open invitation. Let's not bring in foot fetishists. Should people be penalised for showing their cleavage and/or legs/other body parts? Is that a crime? Obviously, it's subjective and in cultures where it's common, it's less of a big deal or even considered an open invitation...just because certain parts are showing. What it comes down to is 'willingness' and that is almost always verbal unless the person is mute and drags the willing guy to her boudoir, after nodding her head to the guy furiously or something. There is a difference between being aroused and showing off whatever gestures for example. Someone could be aroused with women fully clothed and a fully clothed woman can show her sexual willingness in various ways that don't involve sexual gestures.

Apparent and concealed can cover all these, but what I'm asking is...are such acts crimes, to be punishable by the state as per the quran if they occur in public...? Can some of them be subjectively interpreted as fawahisha's as per the quran? Are fawahisha's as per the quran clear cut and completely listed? If so, can anything other than that be called a fahisha subject to interpretation, and if so, can it be called as per the quran? I'm not getting a clear answer, I mean yes or no will suffice for a start. I don't want to keep repeating in different ways because it's tedious, as I mentioned, I'll get back to you later if I find I have the time or will to do that.

Mazhar

Is a fahisha as per the quran only dealing with sex in your view?

No, not only; the perception and meanings infolded in the Root were mentioned in a post. Qur'aan has used it in other sense also, violation of the protocol of the Messenger by his wives by not standing on his arrival as a gesture of respect and honour for being Messenger and not merely their husband. If my wife does not receive me standing, it is not fahashi.