Is it zina?
-
Hi kamenriderkiki,
You are referring to a verse that is directed to the prophet, not to the muslims (submitters/peacemakers) or the mumins (believers/convinced). If you use a verse that is directed to the prophet to support the notion that a marriage doesn't consists of a dowry, then I think that your argument holds no weight. Because a verse that it is directed to the prophet is directed to the prophet, not to others. Let me repeat that one more time A verse that it is directed to the prophet is directed to the prophet, not to others.
O ye who believe! obey God, and obey the Messenger, and those charged with authority among you. If ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to God and His Messenger, if ye do believe in God and the Last Day that is best, and most suitable for final determination. (4 59)
They're humans just like us, no different,
If they're allowed to do it, we can too
As you know, I don't agree with your views regarding marriage. And you don't agree with my views regarding marriage. Therefore, I think that it is better if we just agree to disagree.
This is my last post to you in this thread.
Peace.
Sometimes in some other post you're a little bit dishonest too at times Taro, don't mean no disrespect or anything but remember the salat is not physical post i asked you about how you do your salat but you replied with
As far as I know, it is not important to know how others do their Salat. In my view, it is not important to know how I do Salat or how many times a day I do Salat .
Be a little honest to anyone next time okay, don't hold back information, not accusing you or anything just a little friendly tip.
I hope you're not quitting on this thread because numerous people disagree with your strict view of the quran, but nevertheless i hope we can have a friendly discussion someday in my upcoming thread in regards about a certain topic that you may relate to.Quran 424 And the independent from the women, except those maintained by your oaths; the book of God over you; and permitted for you is what is beyond this, if you are seeking with your money to be independent, not for illicit sex. As for those whom you have already had joy with, then you shall give them their dowries as an obligation. There is no sin upon you for what you agree on after the obligation. God is Knowledgeable, Wise.
Quran 425 And whoever of you cannot afford to marry the independent female believers, then from those maintained by your oaths of the believing young women. And God is more aware of your faith, some of you to each other. You shall marry them with the permission of their parents, and give them their dowries in kindness-to be independent not for illicit sex or taking lovers. Until they become independent, any of them who comes with an immorality shall have half of what is the punishment for those who are independent. This is for those who fear hardship from among you. But if you are patient it is better for you, and God is Forgiver, Merciful.
Quran 55 Today, the good things have been made lawful to you, and the food of those who have been given the Book is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them; and the independent females from those who are believers, and the independent females from those who have been given the Book before you, if you have given them their dowries, to be independent, not for illicit sex or taking lovers. And whoever rejects belief, then his work has fallen, and in the Hereafter he is of the losers.
Quran 2235 And there is no sin upon you if you openly propose marriage to the women, or you keep it between yourselves. God knows that you will be thinking about them, but do not meet them secretly, unless you have something righteous to say. And do not finalize the marriage contract until the interim in the book is reached. And know that God knows what is in your souls, so be aware of Him, and know that God is Forgiving, Compassionate.
Quran 2236 There is no sin upon you if you divorce the women before having sexual intercourse with them, or before setting the dowry for them. Let them have recompense, the rich according to his means, and the poor according to his means. A recompense in goodness, a responsibility for the good doers.
I was about to refute you about those verses you just posted above, but since you gave up on our discussion, then writing my interpretation of those verse is pointless if you're quitting...oh well
Good night and good luck
-kamen
-
To my knowledge, it is not always so.
Can you explain why?
-
Because I found this statement on the Qur'an
. . . . . .
Please check 3350.
7029 Those who conceal their private parts.
7030 Except around their spouses or those committed to by oath, there is no blame.
7031 Then, whoever seeks anything beyond this, they are the transgressors.Puny humans like us can too have a spouse who is committed by oath according to this verse...
Goodnight, and Goodluck...
-
@ kamenriderkiki
Please study/read verse 3350 more carefully.
Good night.
3350 O prophet, We have made lawful for you the wives to whom you have already given their dowry, and the one who is committed to you by oath, as granted to you by God, and the daughters of your father's brothers, and the daughters of
your father's sisters, and the daughters of your mother's brothers, and the daughters of your mother's sisters, of
whom they have emigrated with you. Also, the acknowledging woman who had decreed herself to the prophet, the prophet may marry her if he wishes, as a privilege given only to you and not to those who acknowledge. We have already decreed their rights in regard to their spouses and those who are still dependants. This is to spare you any hardship. God is Forgiver, Compassionate.
Also, the acknowledging woman who had decreed herself to the prophet, the prophet may marry her if he wishes, as a privilege given only to you and not to those who acknowledge.
God was talking about the woman who had decreed herself to the prophet that are exclusive to him...not the one's that are committed by oath or by dowry, the daughters of his father's brothers, and the daughters of his father's sisters, and the daughters of his mother's brothers, and the daughters of his mother's sisters.
I suggest that you too should read more carefully when there are dots(.) and commas(,) visible, no offense.
The ones that are committed by oath are lawful for us in 7030 according to God.-Goodnight and good luck
peace
-
that are exclusive to him...
So, based on your statement above,
I think you admit that there's thing that exclusive only for prophet, right?
That's what I want to point out. Please check again my statement on Reply #140.
To my knowledge, it is not always so.
See?
I do not intend to discuss with you about "those committed to by oath".
What I disagree is this statement
If they're allowed to do it, we can too
I hope you understand what I mean here,
if you don't, then I don't think I can help you to understand it.
Peace.
-
I do not intend to discuss with you about " those committed to by oath".
What I disagree is this statement
I hope you understand what I mean here,
if you don't, then I don't think I can help you to understand it.
Peace.
My mistake, i thought we were having "the committed by oath" discussion that i was having with wakas and taro handshake
You know you could've been more clearer if you hadn't wrote so shortly you know or explain it in detail in the first place about what you meantSo you agree about my argument that a marriage that is committed by oath instead of dowry is possible then?...
-
I was wondering if 1 female and 1 male got stuck on an island together with no hope of getting back to the city and they want to re-populate the island does it count that both of them are committing zina?They're both not legally married. Does loving each other counts as religiously married according to the quran?
It's not a joke it's a serious question
salaam
the question has no sense for me.
first, there is no religious marriage in quran. word nikah is used for example for mariage of idolaters (24-3)
second, nikah is just the marriage contract, Nothing to do with sex see 33-49 who spoke about "nikah" without sex.
third Concubine is called malakat aymanoukom in quran, that is a verbal committment
fourth zina has nothing to do with sex. It is defaming someone.Nikah is just a contract who garantee women rights. It give women rights on what husband earn and rights in inheritage.
Concubinage is not appreciated by quran because of that. it give no "official" rights to women. But it is not forbidden.4-3 has nothing to do with polygamy. it begins with (And if you fear that you cannot be just to the orphans) and there is no logical relation with second part if we intend polygamy. It is speaking about charity and asking muslim to help women in need or in status of concubine to get married.
33-50 to 33-52 is allowing to prophet, exceptionnaly, to maintain women and concubines he had before revelation and hijra and forbids him to take any new spouse. Khadija never existed.
For others, the rule is monogamy. 33-50 is clear that quran imposed difficult rules to others muslims concerning sposes and concubines.Quran give no sexual rights on slaves. 'i will not debate on the question if slavery is allowed.
Peace
-
My mistake, i thought we were having "the committed by oath" discussion that i was having with wakas and taro handshake
It is okay. )
You know you could've been more clearer if you hadn't wrote so shortly you know or explain it in detail in the first place about what you meant
I'm sorry.
So you agree about my argument that a marriage that is committed by oath instead of dowry is possible then?...
I think my current knowledge is not adequate enough to answer such question.
By the way, why you seem so interested about this issue?
Whether you want to marriage without giving dowry?
Peace.
-
It is okay. )
I'm sorry.
I think my current knowledge is not adequate enough to answer such question.
By the way, why you seem so interested about this issue?
Whether you want to marriage without giving dowry?
Peace.
When i started to wonder why so many muslims drink alcohol, i found out that the quran never prohibits them instead in 1667 wine making is encouraged, When some part of my country starts practicing rajm(stoning) and lashing(a sharia law country), and child marriage i started to observe why so many committed couples have sex out of marriage, muslim or not, i was beginning to wonder if a committed couple is on the same degree as a married couple, they support each other both financially and have the same commitment as a normal married couple would, the word committed by oath in 3350 got me thinking that way so as in 7030.
I don' like the way the women are called sl*ts or the guy is called a stud when they engage in sexual activity, or they should be lashed or stoned to death, not trying to justify fornication btw..I'm not really sure about committed by oath means concubine btw...
I was wondering if 1 female and 1 male got stuck on an island together with no hope of getting back to the city and they want to re-populate the island does it count that both of them are committing zina?They're both not legally married. Does loving each other counts as religiously married according to the quran?
It's not a joke it's a serious question
salaam
the question has no sense for me.
I meant that from the eyes of God are these couples are considered as adulterers or not...they're stuck on an island and can't get married like normal people do in a normal society
-
So you're calling me individualistic to the core because i have a different point of view on what a marriage is than you or society...very tolerant of you
today, tolerance means political correctness
i am very politically incorrect
The couple on the island are similar to gf/bf relationship so yeah it's still in context
it is not the same context, because you live on an island, there's only 2 individuals left on earth, this is not a realistic scenario
after about a few generations the whole family would be so inbred that the line wouldn't continue anyway and you'd end up with humanity vanished from earth
it's not a realistic scenario, and you can't use that scenario to validate fantasies about anything
i'm reminded of some shia rule that say paying a prostitute is like temporary marriage of one hour, something along those lines
Btw If your eye is still functioning well i wrote that the couple on the island wants to re-populate
Btw if you can scroll to the top of the website's page you'll notice that there's a tiny banner named "Free-Minds", and that is the website's name, and the word "Free" means that i can share or ask a question or have discussion on any topic i want, i'm an open-minded person and free to take any opinion or any person's thought(even you) no need to judge me as "individualistic to the core" just because i have a different interpretation of the quran than you.i am not an open minded person, i am a critically minded person
im simply saying this is how you look like when you try to justify whatever you're trying to justify using unrealistic examples
if you want to talk about the state of the institution of marriage in the west today, we can do this, i think marriage in the western world is a joke because of the divorce laws associated with it
we can talk about how divorce is now a multi million, perhaps a multi billion dollar business in the USA, or how marriage, and the concept of family, has been tarnished with the idea that any can marry anything and be a "family"A GF/BF or fiance are just labels in my point of view, and tell me what's the difference between a couple relationship and today's marriage? what does it require to be labelled as married, huh? papers? and imam or priest that requests a permission from God that these couple are married? tell me on what is your definition of marriage?
it requires witnesses, it requires following the simple rules laid out by the quran, it requires yes indeed papers, because the day your girlfriend gets pregnant, you will pop out yet another child on earth, and if the family is not strong, the child grows up wrong and ends up becoming a problem for society
you're talking about this subject using anecdotal evidence, thinking that because you have no issues with your situation, this system can now be applied for everyonewe see what's happening in the west, especially in the USA and especially for the blacks in the USA, 70% of black homes are single mother homes
marriage means commitment, and when we let people be absolutely free to do as they please, without guidance (because guiding them, in today's society, would be considered "authoritarianism", without advices, they end up with 70% single mother households, drug usage and crime through the roof, poverty and destitution, and the most important factor being rejected responsibilityyou will notice how the people who claim to be the most free also never talk about responsibility
the founding fathers of the USA knew the important that responsibility had when talking about freedom, but in today's world, we live in a society of entitlement freedom, and freedom from responsibilities -
I think from hte several combinations and factors given in the twenty first ayas of An-Nur I think it has a lot to do with society and sexual morality.
May peole tend to make a lot of what the punishment of zina is but forget what follows which gives the right perspective. The thrust of the wholething is to free societies of suspicion and slandering particularly women. Insist that sex is something private and that nboody is entitled to intrude in the privacy of people least of all with purpose of inspecting sexual life somebody else.
So I do think that it is about sexual morality that the question turns and fixes not so much the way to punish it but the way to keep people from using sexual life as a weapon against other people, particularly women.
There is no particular interestshown in punishing misbehaviour on that count, since upon nobody is imposed the obligation of testifying. It is the person who launches a statement regarding somebody else sexual misbehaviour who must come with witnesses, not people who are called by God to act as witnesses.Summing up, it is a deterrent por people, as said, to turn private sex into a weapon angainst particularly women.
So I would gather from it that zina is any ilicit sex. Any sex considered ilicit. That would seemingly depend on which sex a society considers ilicit. If it is society that strictly follows the Qur'an obviously ilicit sex would be any sex that is done against qura'nic unjunctions between a man and a woman.
Salaam
Salaam
-
Salam All,
Referring to Q24.33, i think there is a distinction between the act of zina and prostitution, thus zina does not appear to be a mere act of illegal fornication. Zina is an act that can break apart marriages/commitments and the home institution. Homosexuality, prostitution is linked to lewdness in general. just my tots. peace.
-
I know a part of aya 23.33 three has been many times trnslated as nto forc? your maids into rpostitution, but that is a horrendous translation which on the one had does not match the whole of the aya and on the other hand forces on the Qur'an a disdain for the fateyaat, translated as "maids", which is an ambivalent Word.
We know something that is very common in houses where girls are held as servants when they are accosted by the men in the house. It is a statistical facts that many such girls havebeen forced by forc? or by oaction into giving into the favours of the men and then getting pregnant, thrown out and so on.
I am sure that is meant in this case and not that the master goes arround selling his girls because that is something wholly of another order and does not match the whle of the aya. It is not tlking about prostitution as an institution, legal or ilegal, but about abusing those girls under your protection. From where it can be inferred that it is talking aobut prostitution at all The firl is being had for free. Her services are not being sold but she is forced by their masters.
As to the assumption that prostitution does not break a marriage.... Well, wel,well... whose marriage? Those where she does not have any idea he goes to prostitutes or which marriage?
I can assure you I might have some understanding for a sudden or unwanted weakness in a partner and falling once. I might. But for my man going to prostitutes, I would never want to see him again, not for a minute nor from any distance. I would spit on him. Pig? Humans do not go around marrying pigs!
For God's sake. If a woman puts up with that, what kind of moral or self-respect or respect for her husband does she have?
Does not break marriages? Yes, what kind of marriage is that. At any rate does the Qur'an support that. Even if the aya you mention were to refer in fact to prostitution how does it make it right or cceptable or not zina? It is not saying that what the master does is not zina it is telling them not to force their maids into whtever it is. Because, you see, it would not be zina for the forced person, but for the forcing person it would certainly be. Or would you say the fact that it is forced makes it better. Also i the aya no distinction is made between those doing the forcing being married or unmarried. It is a whole different question that it is being dealt with in that aya ONe in which somebody is being forced by somebody else into having sex.
Salaam
-
Hello,
We should be utterly careful before we draw too many conclusions about an Arabic word because there were many innovative clerics who messed around to twist things the way they liked it.
Extract from Project Root List about Zay-Nun-Ya
Zay-Nun-Ya = to mount, the mounting upon a thing, to commit fornication/adultery, fornicator/adulterer.
Always grow suspicious when there are multiple definitions in ancient lexicon derivatives.
Lesson two, always behold similar roots and investigate and cross-check
Zay-Ya-Nun = To adorn, deck. Adorn, grace, honor . Embellished, dressed, or trimmed it . Adorned , ornamented, decorated, decked, bedecked, garnished, embellished, beautified, or graced him/it. Of language it is said "It was embellished, dressed up, or trimmed". Of action it is said "It was embellished, dressed up"; i.e. commended to a person by another man. A grace, a beauty, a comely quality, a physical/intellectual adornment, an honour or a credit, and anything that is the pride or glory of a person or a thing. A thing that does not disgrace or render unseemly a wise man in any of his states or conditions, either in the present world or in that which is to come. It are of three kinds Mental Such as knowledge/science and good tenants. Bodily Strength, tallness of stature, beauty of aspect. Extrinsic Wealth, rank or station, dignity.
In the end it might be that the word does not even mean what people propose but the word is just another fabrication by fanatical clerics and scholars within sectarian religious orders who sought to interpret the innocent Arabic Quran but did not really understand a thing and were more interested about fitting their doctrine into its interpretation. They had no problems inventing religious words such as salat, zakat etc which have nothing at all to do with what they suggested. Completely hijacked. And they made a mockery out of the Semitic languages including Arabic.
It may even be that the word in your context is related to this root
Waw-Zay-Nun = to weigh/judge/measure.
The people in the context may be people guilty of something, i.e. culprits. People to be judged because they have something upon them (mounted upon them).
Alif-Zay-Zay = to incite, make a loud crash, produce a noise. (very primitive root)
That was all my input.
Be safe
Amenuel -
Always grow suspicious when there are multiple definitions in ancient lexicon derivatives.
All languages are like this, that's what makes it a language. We don't live in a simple world where one word = one meaning. Natural human languages are heavily influenced by context. Linguists 1000 years knew it just as much as linguists today know it.
-
There are well known words in Arabic that arouse suspicion in view of the differet adscriptions by some traditional interpreters or translators of the Qur'an, but to seek fire where there is no smoke and besides the morphlogy of Arabic does sustain a particular word type, even if it haas been also upheld by some traditional interpreters of Qur'an, is seeking gain from the "opposite" side. That is, do the same contrived sculpturing of meanings out of any stone as has been done by the traditional interpreters that are said to have been interepreting so as to upheld their own ideas and not the pure menaing of the Qur'an.
Daraba and nisaa' may be two such words.
Funnily enough nisaa' is not such a mistery word, since it is a clear plural of exactly the same type s r-i-j-a-a-l, n-i-s-a-a-'.
The problem with this was to pick the singular for the plural, but the plural form is undisputable. Plese look in dictionnaries the diferent meanings of the substantives of the First form of tht root, because it may give a useful idea of how the derived meaning of a collective lural for women could have sprung up for that. And it is can be very interesting, indeed.Another thing that can happ?n and hs hapenned is that the selfseeking interpretation of some words int he Qur'an may have indeed as time went has in fact superosed new meaning on a qura'nic word that was not the same as it had at the time of revelation.
'Ujuur is a very standard plural form
and the root '-j-r is plain and clear also in al its derived words, verbs or substantives. The use in the Qur'an is also plain and not unfrequent. It is clear three consonant root where the first letter is hamza, a consonant although represented by hamza-alif and subject to the grafical reresentations of haamza in writing.
I don't care whether someone seeking gain of cause through twisting roots and words is a traditionalist or a self-called renewer or whatever. Playing with grammar to gain cause is not legitimate.
Research is fine, very fine indeed, but playing around with words to milk something without ny grammatical support from the language of the Qur'an may give plesure, may give gains, but it is a cheat just as much as the traditionl playing around was a cheat.
So try around and research, yes, but do not hurry to put everything upside down before coming with proper material. Or in doubt, simmply put upp questions for all to ponder, but do not state things that are unwarranted.
There is no helm, for instance, to base 'ujuur on a j-r-r root as much as there would not be a helm to base it on a p-r-r rooot. Coincidence of two letters being cause for it would lead to plainly discard Arabic language altogether, be it Qur'anic Arabic or any other version.
Another thing of course is the study of lettrs by themselves and their combinations, which would be altogether a very different matter as long as half cooked deductions from that are not forced on words that already have a established and sustained meaning and semantic field.
Salaam