Understanding Zina
-
Peace,
What is your understanding of that verb?
-
In my opinion the wrongly translated word here is flogging...it is not anywhere else in the Q used in that way..so focus on that word instead.
Peace,
I cannot figure it out...so I decided to rest from that topic for now...I came across one group on FB where they said it means to protect, but I didn't look deeper into it.Feel free to start a topic about that word. This thread is dealing with the understanding of the word zina. Personally I find no evidence for any interpretation of that verb that excludes referring to "skin".
-
I agree but so far I haven't found any evidence contradicting the flogging translation.
-
The Sahih International Translation produces this as the English translation of Sura 243 - " The fornicator does not marry except a fornicator or polytheist, and none marries her except a fornicator or a polytheist, and that has been made unlawful to the believers."
This in itself doesn't give any reference to 'zina' by name, only that those who have been deemed 'fornicators' (by one means or another) are not to marry any but other who have been deemed to be fornicators or polytheists; the sura specifies that these individuals are unlawful for 'the believers' (obviously Muslims, but one may make the argument that in this case 'the believers' extends to Jews and Christians as well for purposes of maintaining the social order).
As for the requirement for witnesses, we find in 244 that an accusation of adultery carries a requirement of four witnesses- regardless of the practical difficulty of this, that is what the Qur'an specifies and we have no recourse but to include this standard of evidence. Note that an accusation not backed up by the witnesses is disregarded and the accuser is awarded eighty lashes for his trouble. In other words- don't accuse someone unless you have proper proof.
In the case of a husband accusing his wife of adultery, we have an entirely different standard of evidence as laid out in 246-9.
Taken as a whole, the argument does indeed refer specifically to 'unlawful intercourse' whether it be between persons married to another, two unmarried people, or a married person and an unmarried one. The key is that marriage is the only condition that provides for lawful intercourse.
However, given the relative mountain of eyewitness evidence that is required to prosecute such an accusation, it would seem the primary reason for the specification of 100 lashes would, in fact, be for 'disturbing the peace' by such a public display so flagrant as to be seen by four other individuals (and at this point I would ask for clarification if these four witnesses must observe the act together, or may they witness it apart from each other at differing times and still be considered valid witnesses?).
The question I would have, though, is if indeed a man and woman (or m/m or f/f as the case may be) are caught in flagrante dilicto and are successfully prosecuted in a proper court AND the punishment of 100 lashes is applied to each, does that absolve them of any subsequent punishment from Allah upon his rendering of judgement?
As a follow-on question in the absence of a proper Qur'an-guided court, the application of the lashes is for all practical purposes nullified as a punishment. In this case, if the couple in question sees the error of their ways and repents and each returns to- or begins- an observant life, what then? Are they absolved of the sin through their sincere repentance?
OR.... am I looking at all of this through the lens of my former hadithista life and putting too much emphasis on having a special 'court' involved at all? Could not a person familiar with the relevant suras of the Qur'an sit as 'judge' and consider the evidence laid out by the defendants and the accuser(s)? Is a finding of a person or persons as being guilty of the crime of adultery or otherwise 'unlawful sexual intercourse' really as simple as having four unimpeachable witnesses attest to their personally witnessing the couple in the commission of the act? Can I, armed with the Qur'an, listen to witnesses and sit in judgement of another in this fashion- if not I, then who?
-
From the whole exposition of the Qur'an regarding this and the subsequent ayas, my conlcusion after many years es that this punishment 100 lashes or whatever is trnslated sets the quality of the misdeed. That is, transgression of the moral law in this matter is very grave, it is not at all a light matter.
But at the same time the requisite to prosecute is practically undoable and the reason is to stop gossip and slander and defamation, again I insist that those ayas after the ayas on fornication must be read together. From that reading it is clear that defaming very specially of women is heinous and that the setting of the punishment for fornication is meant to set an end to that slandering and defamation (eating the believers flesh). If you force the slanderers to bring four witnesses or shut up, they have no excuse to slander nor to gossip.
As to the question whether they must all testify to the same event, and not separate events, For sure, it must be so, the same event. If it were othetwise it would defy the very meaning of giving testimony, because one only witness is not questionable against the other witnesses that might check his or her testimony, that is a must and a need in any justice administration. So really, four witnesses pending on them the possibility of themselves being punished for false testimony is almost a perfect insurance against anybody bringing a charge of zina.
So while the (low) moral standard of the deed is clearly set forth, its punishment by human means is made too problematic and unlikely.
As to whether Gods forgives after the 100 lashes, that is like everything else between the sinner and God., We cannot know. ?We may suspect and we may be right or not but we cannot know. Thank God that task is taken off our shoulders.
This whole first part of sura An-Nur are indeed very enlightening, I mean those ap to aya 30. They devolve the responsibility for doing good on the very people and not on any authority figure.
We must remember al ghayb, that belongs to God, and in includes the sexual acts. We are supposed to do good and enjoin good but not to pry on peoples lives, on peoples' sins. God gives all of us space to think over our wrongs and to repent and to reflect. Nobody should trespass that save for enjoining good and give the most sincere and honest advice PRIVATELY.
Salaam
-
So really, four witnesses pending on them the possibility of themselves being punished for false testimony is almost a perfect insurance against anybody bringing a charge of zina.
Let's render the whole verse meaningless so we can ignore it. Well done, I just don't think that is shedding any light on the matter. The four witnesses are not an impossible condition. They are very practical conditions if you understand what zina really means harlotry. Zina and zanah in hebrew are always used to refer to harlotry. In some cases even cult harlotry being part of certain forms of idol worship. In fact a large majority of the occurrences of the words representing "harlotry" express cult harlotry instead of non-cult related prostitution. These kinds of idol worship are the worst in Gods eyes they are the ultimate symbol of being "promiscuous" towards God. Cheating on God with idols or attributing partners to God. A cult harlot will be witnessed by more than 4.
I don't find any evidence zina is referring to anything but cult harlotry and idol worship. The word has it's roots in Hebrew, you can't just ignore the entire Tanakh and redefine zina as just "adultery or fornication". There is no evidence for it outdise hadith and tradition.
Peace
-
I understand that this is a thread about the word zina, but sometimes a wrong translation can occur when the surrounding words are wrongly translated. That's why I think is importaint to understand the word translated as flogging. Peace.
Can't you people just flog the whores? Have to make so many excuses for her!
The Bible has even more severe punishment mentions.
In any case though this was as usual a cool idea presented in this thread, and I enjoyed it.
-
Let's render the whole verse meaningless so we can ignore it. Well done, I just don't think that is shedding any light on the matter. The four witnesses are not an impossible condition. They are very practical conditions if you understand what zina really means harlotry. Zina and zanah in hebrew are always used to refer to harlotry. In some cases even cult harlotry being part of certain forms of idol worship. In fact a large majority of the occurrences of the words representing "harlotry" express cult harlotry instead of non-cult related prostitution. These kinds of idol worship are the worst in Gods eyes they are the ultimate symbol of being "promiscuous" towards God. Cheating on God with idols or attributing partners to God. A cult harlot will be witnessed by more than 4.
I don't find any evidence zina is referring to anything but cult harlotry and idol worship. The word has it's roots in Hebrew, you can't just ignore the entire Tanakh and redefine zina as just "adultery or fornication". There is no evidence for it outdise hadith and tradition.
Peace
!How repulsive!
Let's render the whole verse meaningless so we can ignore it. Well done, I just don't think that is shedding any light on the matter. The four witnesses are not an impossible condition. They are very practical conditions if you understand what zina really means harlotry. Zina and zanah in hebrew are always used to refer to harlotry. In some cases even cult harlotry being part of certain forms of idol worship. In fact a large majority of the occurrences of the words representing "harlotry" express cult harlotry instead of non-cult related prostitution. These kinds of idol worship are the worst in Gods eyes they are the ultimate symbol of being "promiscuous" towards God. Cheating on God with idols or attributing partners to God. A cult harlot will be witnessed by more than 4.
I don't find any evidence zina is referring to anything but cult harlotry and idol worship. The word has it's roots in Hebrew, you can't just ignore the entire Tanakh and redefine zina as just "adultery or fornication". There is no evidence for it outdise hadith and tradition.
Peace
Lovely bible, men sin and women get beaten. Fantastic, only the Qur'an does not say a word on that.
You are spitting on the Qur'an, bringin all the time any foul measure from the bible to trump it.
Forget the bible and stick to the Qur'an. If you want to bring the bible, open a thread for that and boast about it as much as you want.
And also very convenient forgettiing the whole of that part of An-Nur which is very eloquent about exactly what it is speaking about, common plain women disgracing an bashing.
Salaam
-
Anything else I can do for you huruf? Do you want a hug? group
Peace
-
!How repulsive!
Lovely bible, men sin and women get beaten. Fantastic, only the Qur'an does not say a word on that.
You are spitting on the Qur'an, bringin all the time any foul measure from the bible to trump it.
Forget the bible and stick to the Qur'an. If you want to bring the bible, open a thread for that and boast about it as much as you want.
And also very convenient forgettiing the whole of that part of An-Nur which is very eloquent about exactly what it is speaking about, common plain women disgracing an bashing.
Salaam
Made me happy to see myself in action!