Is it zina?
-
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
-
Hello Huruf,
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.
I am not sure whether you indirectly pointed anything towards me, but I can only tell you that I am conducting a careful research however I am open-minded towards the possibility that a group of people was completely twisting the language around some millennia ago and as far as I have proceeded this is the situation I have come towards. There is no coincidence that ancient lexicons often speak about entirely different definitions for words that the sectarian crowd has translated and interpreted otherwise. Seldom I am unfounded when it comes to lexical definitions for words but they are found within them, and if I am slightly off then I am supporting that through 'Innate Letter Meanings' as that is the construct of the Semitic languages, and when interpreting a weak root I look towards the more primitive base roots since they ought to convey a meaning derived from that base root.
I do not change anything to suit any popularity gain or anything but I have simply let the language speak for itself of what it uncovers. What I cannot help is that it apparently coincides with my faith system but that was not a surprise to me since I know the kind of things I propagate on this forum is what God stands for. It was a relief when Quran began to reveal something similar to what I had contemplated about our existence.
I know it is difficult to accept that God is actually a sort of symbiotic phenomenon like a platform of existence and a spiritual link and we can "Be Who Are". I did not myself understand how it exactly was until I realized that there is actually no separation between God and the person who gets "unclouded" and "worship" as it is known is bogus and a remnant of Paganism. We must let God be expressed from within ourselves, from our Spirit since the "Holy Spirit" is the medium between us and the Rabb. And I have learned that the Body is not our true selves and that is what causes our distraction and blindness towards perceiving we are actually God's children in Spirit, God is the "Father", i.e. the derived root and from which model our Spirit is made. The word for Father, abbua, can be understood as the function of a father.
Alif-Ba-Waw = father/grandfather/ancestor, fathership/paternity, to nourish/feed/rear, bring up.
Abraham is also called our father even though he is not a biological father because that is also a nourishment. It is acceptable by God to call Him Father. I call God Father personally within my family.
There is no helm, for instance, to base 'ujuur on a j-r-r root
I disagree with you here however. Roots beginning with alef or other "weak letters" are seldom considered to be derived from themselves fundamentally. The word 'amen' is for example based on the root Miim-Nun-Nun, the same root that you use to say 'min' in Arabic and amen could be perceived as something like saying "open eyes/realize" in English with the alif standing for an action in the word's formula.
Another case is , it is not from a root with those letters fundamentally even if it is obviously its own word, a construct, used in the context. One has to look for derivative base root. By looking for the derivative it is easier to exclude false definitions. It is even that one can rule out a variety of definitions almost outright.
I know that many Aramaic scholars would agree with me in many cases here, and Aramaic is not too far off from Arabic. One has to be careful when determining the derivative root and some forms are less likely to be the derivative root setup. Additionally you can see the link between the similar root examinations that I often do.
Islamic scholars and so-called experts that are non-Muslim, they simply follow the same flawed propagated version that emerged which does not have any basis. People have to admit that these people in the past were neatly fabricating a language to suit their agenda and the work I am committed to is not twisting anything but rather untwisting, getting to the bottom of the problem.
The corruption did not begin with Islam and its adherents but it seems to have begun systematically already prior to the advent of Islamism and also with Aramaic et cetera. People played around with word within religious sects prior to it. Both salat and zakat are religious inventions based on innocent words and is having an inappropriate impact on the language, and the real meanings of both words are very different from what they vaguely imply without any basis.
Playing with grammar to gain cause is not legitimate
That is where I have problems in my encounter with people because it is difficult to prove to them that I am not playing around with grammar but rather it was people before me who already messed around with the grammatical knowledge. Thanks to the 'Innate Letter Meanings' it has been easier to see how the language speaks grammatically and thus I argue that I am not playing around with it, and obviously as my skill strengthens I can empower my arguments to higher levels.
I am never excluding the possibility that I am wrong in any way and while I have ruled out that (la) does mean 'no/not', it can be used grammatically to say 'except' depending on the sentence construct. It can be compared with 'but' in English which can take a different impact on the language to convey exclusion. The ancient interpreters did however always interpret it as 'no/not'. They somehow became confused with (ma) which on the other hand always does mean 'no/not' and NEVER 'what'. I wish that people could some day realize that the skill of the ancient interpreters was really bad but they have come forth as professionals and their faulty way of understanding Arabic carries on today 2015 and is the foundation of a whole language as it is spoken and written today.
Be safe
Amenuel -
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 never said they were they are the last couple on earth, you did
Couple stranded on an island =/=last couple on earth
Like i said before ,read more carefully if your eyes are still functioning welli 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"I too thought myself the same thing after scrolling this site for 10 minutes...
I'll be making a thread specifically about how ujrahuun should not be translate as Dowry
and how today's believers only recognize marriage as a ceremony with unnecessary rituals and how a ring and a piece of paper are made as medium to god to send a message that they're marriedwe 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 responsibilityA legal documented marriage(the marriage that you're reffering) can too have irresponsible husbands and housewives, there are some who are responsible
And one of the couple in a couple relationship too can be irresponsible, but there are some who are responsible, and chose a fully committed relationship and chose to be a mother or father of the baby that they just brought up instead of killing it
I couldn't find where in the quran says a marriage is haram without witness...
-
Pretty much yeah. It was typically a statement of proof to be able to financially provide for her, and she retains it even in case of divorce. It is still a "bride price" you basically are paying for her (not to her parents but to her), and she has to of course accept the price and that is the contract. She can't be forced. It almost sounds like modern prostitution but not a temporary contract, this is basically the marriage procedure so after the dowry is offered and accepted, then she has agreed to be married. It is almost similar to the "ring" tradition, except it appears the dowry should be something that she can support herself on or save in case of divorce or any issue, otherwise it is pointless and a person could still be taking advantage of her.
Then there are other obligations as well, but the main obligation is that you are able to financially provide for her and be a good husband and honor her and treat her well and take care of children if any are had and all that. All that duty is on the man mainly in the Islamic Law. That doesn't mean the woman can't work, just that it is not her duty to be the working one, it is the obligation of the man in being a righteous husband to take on all the providing activities where the woman's duty is traditionally to take care of children directly with breast feeding and whatever so she is not asked to also be the working one too but can of course.
The whole mind should be turned towards what is most just and right.
What is most just and right is the following
A man and a woman love each other, love meaning care for the well-being of the other and treat them as a priority to protect and cherish. What people usually call "love" meaning some passive sexual whim, is not a requirement, but justice and intent on doing justice is a requirement always in all things. So you should care enough about this person or especially yourself that you will be intent on doing justice and goodness.
You must strive hard and prove your care by the giving of a variety of gifts and affections all the marriage, not just the initial bridal gift of the dowry payment, but continue to provide for her the money for food and the food, and whatever else, just like a proper old cave man. She is basically yours to care for, so you must care for her entirely, not depend on her to care for herself, this is your duty. You need to treat her better than anything or anyone, this is like you've taken on a child or something however offensive that might sound to people, you can not neglect them, abuse them, starve them, etc.
Any man who does not live up to this obligation then is not properly performing the marriage, and most men do not live up to this in the Western society or perhaps elsewhere too, they are all falling short in everything and are generally wicked.
You must work to be better than everyone in goodness.
The woman has a free ride basically, no obligations except to doing justice in her own way, taking care of the children, remaining faithful, not being adulterous or cheating, etc, but the major work obligations are all yours, though she is supposed to be affectionate also but can not really be forced. It is your duty though to do all the caring acts and supportive acts, it is not her duty to carry you in any way, you must do all the carrying generally though she can help willingly, you should work even harder that she does not need to help and she is treated as well as possible.
Various scummy people on this website are not right minded so they oppose these statements but I am telling you the right thing for sure that will help you in all regards, even if this girl leaves you, you will be free from guilt or shame because you were excellent in every regard. Make it so the shame is on the evildoers, make anyone who does you wrong that they have done you wrong in the greatest ways with no justification because you were SO good in the most obvious manner.
You must be a total chump, the kind people call "p*ssy whipped" or whatever, that they will mock you for doing so much extra for your wife, but you know better, she is YOUR WIFE why wouldn't you treat her the best? Do you mistreat your own things? Then you mistreat yourself!
A good marriage is simply treating what is yours, as yours, and treating it well.
If you abuse what is yours, you work at self destruction.
This is a reminder to anyone who is currently married too, not to take it easy, but to strive hard in being good. Don't think it is wasted, it is a form of charity. Your wife and family and kin come first in charity.
So to make them laugh, to make them happy, to make them feel good bodily and otherwise, to make sure they are in good health, to pay them, to feed them, to give them gifts repeatedly, to surprise them, to honor them, to compliment them, to make them feel good, is an HONOR TO YOU.
It doesn't matter what they do, if they fight, if they are mean, you are only to perform justice in everything, and justice tempered with mercy. If you want God to shower you with gifts, treat others as you want God to treat you. I want God to give me gifts for free, for no merit of my own, to shower me with grace and bounty, and that is how you should act towards your companion and your family and your friends and the whole world.
I'm sorry but this may be Islamic law or whatever, but this is terrible advice you're giving to this kid.
A relationship goes both ways. It is not just the man's responsibility to be caring and providing. The couple can work out who works when and who doesn't and work out the financials. That's whatever. But they both have to work at the relationship in all aspects.
And to the OP, the answer to your question is that there's no law that applies to all situations. Do what you think is right and responsible. Don't hurt others while protecting yourself, if you're not doing both those things you're doing something wrong. That's all.
-
And to the OP, the answer to your question is that there's no law that applies to all situations. Do what you think is right and responsible. Don't hurt others while protecting yourself, if you're not doing both those things you're doing something wrong. That's all.
When someone is protecting one's self, it will somehow involve hurting both physically and mentally one way or the other...
it's impossible to do self defense without hurting someone -
I just read one sentence and I am dumbfounded how people do not reason...Why wouldn't there be witnesses when you marry - you are not alone in this world and by marrying you are not involving just yourself but other members of your family into it too.
Whenever there is major contract involved you would like to have witnesses - it's the most reasonable thing in the world!
brickwall -
I think peopleare confusing things
The fact that the "mithaq galith" "solemn pact" which is mentionned in 4.21 is the most intimate nd rivate of things and God is witness and you may betray that pact and cheat the whole world, but God willnotbe cheated, and that is the pact, and the fact that bindin between a male and a female has consequences and those do afect at the root the human comunity, therefore the fact that thereis a solemn pact contracted in the utmost intimacy and privacy for which God vouches does not preclude that all measures that the partners and society may by adopted so thaat under the retext that it is before God, people of bad faith or reckless may play the intimacy card to destroy the pparter or would be partner life.
That happens anyway many times, because mostly young women are some times too trusting and manipulated with the you really do not love or the like
Salaam
-
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.
Very well said huruf.
-
I couldn't find where in the quran says a marriage is haram without witness...
hey i'm just using precedents to look at the question
we know the rules present in the quran concerning marriagehttp//www.misconceptions-about-islam.com/muhammad-married-young-girl.htm
you can't use the conclusion for the question in the OP to justify doing what's in the OP in a context that's different than what the OP presented us