jalada
-
Or send it to 100 friends
Oh you could do it by email! "Hi there, I committed adultery .... please forward this on to 5 other people in 24 hours or you will get bad luck." rotfl
In any case and in all seriousness I'd rather this interpretation than 100 lashes which could kill.
-
Salam;
I looked for it a while ago, and I found these ? points quiet relevant
1- one of the meaning of jalada is "to shave", making then the skin exposed.
2- In the Bible, one punition for the fornicators is to shave women's hair! This is to "make" the women "unattractive".This punition has occured several time in history in different place of the world. The most known recent event was in France in 1945 when french women had relation with german soldiers; they (women) were shaved and were recognised then publicly for their "trahison"!
more info (french article), source wikipedia
http//fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femmes_tonduesPeace
-
Salam, was just reading bits and pieces
I don?t see how jald is exposing them, it don?t make sense to me. Because why would they need to be witnessed later by believers?? Wouldn?t that be exposing, so why mention it (the witnesses) if it?ll be witnessed (exposed) 100 times?
Also ?let not compassion with them keep you from this law of God?
It?s pretty easy to spread news around especially today with internet. over 100 people could find out or share the info, they could do it easily without flinching. with lashing people would be more hesitant to? I?m inclined to believe it is lashes. Sure it?s not a nice punishment, but who said punishment was supposed to be pleasant?
Anyway I don?t know and God knows best.
BTW herbman interesting point, I think when people go animal hunting and take the fur/skin off they call it jald. But if you apply that theory on men.. well men with shaved heads don?t seem so bad.
-
It?s pretty easy to spread news around especially today with internet. over 100 people could find out or share the info, they could do it easily without flinching. with lashing people would be more hesitant to? I?m inclined to believe it is lashes. Sure it?s not a nice punishment, but who said punishment was supposed to be pleasant?
Well all you have to do is say that YOU would lash someone 100 times for adultery.
Anyway I don?t know and God knows best.
Yes but what does your morality tell you?
-
When you take the fur or skin off, the body gets what? e _ p _ s _ d ?
-
Wootah
No I do not need to say I would lash someone 100 times. I would say I feel more inclined that is the interpretation based on my opinion and preconceived notions. you know if I was 100% certain and the adulteress agreed to that law than fine I would do it, otherwise no.
My morality? I don?t know everything and I don?t have a problem with physical punishment if that?s what God really ordained.
Morality is closely related to people?s sociocultural context. that differs and evolves from all communities and from different generations even same household members differ individually.
Your point exactly? All I know is, I have much to learn and I?m trying to understand people?s perspectives in uncovering truth and there is nothing morally wrong about that.
abdalquran
After the fur/skin came off, the body got exposed. it wasn?t until the act of the jald did the body get exposed. a 100 exposes doesn?t make sense. The act of the fur/skin coming off exposes it once, how do you make it a 100 times?
Think of it in today?s time. How do you expose 100 times? How do you differentiate this type of 100 exposures with the 80 jald?
-
Your point exactly? All I know is, I have much to learn and I?m trying to understand people?s perspectives in uncovering truth and there is nothing morally wrong about that.
My point is just to see how people would respond when 'put on the spot'. I am entirely interested in responses to passages such as this and how the individual responds to the command. And I agree there is nothing morally wrong with understanding people's perspectives. -
Sarah
After the fur/skin came off, the body got exposed. it wasn?t until the act of the jald did the body get exposed. a 100 exposes doesn?t make sense. The act of the fur/skin coming off exposes it once, how do you make it a 100 times?Think of it in today?s time. How do you expose 100 times? How do you differentiate this type of 100 exposures with the 80 jald?
Come on, Sarah. Don't take it too literally. We expose the person 100 times by either announcing or whatever. The point is so that people know these persons aren't worth marrying.
People who make the accusation but can't prove it should also be exposed because these people are destroying the lives of others and the same thing should be visited upon them.
-
ok assuming you're right,
you expose the person announcing 100 times or whatever. you know how today's time with media/press/news or even just internet that 100 exposure would escalate to more than 100 people, how do you make this exposure less severe with the 80times?
do you really think you can control that? or do you assume that it's not your problem?
also if you have just exposed 100 times it's just been witnessed so the point in witness' become meaningless?
maybe you're right maybe not atm i can't grasps it.
salam.
-
Good question with the escalation. To me, it's good that it escalates to everyone. But I cant explain the 80 ajlad thingy yet. Thanks for pointing that out.
-
Good question with the escalation. To me, it's good that it escalates to everyone. But I cant explain the 80 ajlad thingy yet. Thanks for pointing that out.
np, it'll be interesting to know what you come up with.
An announcement made will be heard by people and a fact will come to their knowledge. Can it be called "witnessing" and satisfy that the command given has been obeyed and carried out.
They could sign a document? on the internet your ip could be saved? or you could click on a acknowledgement. wouldn't that be witnessed?
gathering 100 people isn't that hard, though the verse doesn't say 100 witnesses are needed.
-
Yes, the exposing is done a hundred times. The witnessing is done by part of the believers. Perhaps this shows an actual public announcement is needed.
-
They could sign a document? on the internet your ip could be saved? or you could click on a acknowledgement. wouldn't that be witnessed?
gathering 100 people isn't that hard, though the verse doesn't say 100 witnesses are needed.
The verb in jussive mood preceded by emphatic particle "Lam" requires making a group of people physically watch the punishment of both two of them.
-
Sorry to have let you along while looking at this "jalada" while I, who invited you, have not said much for a while. I did want to do it as conscitiously as possible but it seems, not suprisingly, that my capacity for that is not there when I want it, but when God wills. I thank you all once more.
It seems to me that there are three main possiblities in what has been exposed
-
The "traditional" consisting in "classical" flogging 100 times.
-
Exposing the guilty ones with their deed in public 100 times so as to shame them.
-
Floggin 100 times taking good care that the punishment doesn't affect anything but the skin.
I will make the remarks that prompt each of the three understandings.
- Flogging a woman or a man who is weak a 100 lashes make in fact kill them. In the text this is not taken into consideration. What one gets out ot the text is that the guilty ones will not experiency any physical sequels of consequence, can remarry and all. The warning not to let pity soften people's hearts would support at first sight a physical punishment, but on the other hand, people in history have been very, very unmoved by physical harm and very moved by reputation. Just think back only very few decades, a battered woman would nearly be killed or killed by the batterer and the woman would be expected not to report the fact to the authorities because of the reputation be it of the husband or father, who would be exposed as not having any authority, or hers, as a bad woman who deserved battering. In centuries past people could be phyisically very cruel without flinching, not to speak of Roman circus and publi torturing and other niceties.
Considering the language, and this would apply to all three cases that are being considered, the problem I come up with is to know with certainty, and not falling back on later use to uphold it, what the meaning of "jalda" and jalada was at the time of the revelation. I don't have the ressources for that. If anybody can bring some light it would be great.
Other than that and considering the semantics, in a language like English or Spanish where there is a difference between skin and leather, that is the skin of persons and the skins of animal put to use, we would be directed to the proper meaning, in Arabic, both ar jild. Had it been that jild would be exclusively leather we would have legitimately concluded that jild refers to a lash or leather object for flogging.
Going to Qur'an the overwhelming use, other than the jalada and jalda that appear in the sura Nur, is as the skin of people. I detail underneath
22.19-20
19. These two antagonists dispute with each other about their Lord But those who deny (their Lord),- for them will be cut out a garment of Fire over their heads will be poured out boiling water.- With it will be scalded what is within their bodies, as well as (their) skins (fi butunihim wa al julud.)
39.23
The skins of those who fear their lord trembleand then their skins and hearts soften
-
- At length, when they reach the (Fire), their hearing, their sight, and their skins will bear witness against them, as to (all) their deeds.
-
They will say to their skins "Why bear ye witness against us?" They will say "(Allah) hath given us speech,- (He) Who giveth speech to everything He created you for the first time, and unto Him were ye to return.
-
"Ye did not seek to hide yourselves, lest your hearing, your sight, and your skins should bear witness against you! But ye did think that Allah knew not many of the things that ye used to do!
TIn order for it to have the meaning of understanding 1. I miss some clarification as to with what should that jalada o jalda be dispensed. In practice, such as done today, it is not exactly a lash. To me that is a significant absence. And standing on the Qur'an alone I do not feel flogging 100 times with ordinary strength is warranted. I wonder what the Arabic word for the noun "lash" was the usual one at that time.
-
Exposing the the adulterers publicly, although some have pointed out the difficulty of counting 100 times, I suppose there is not much difficulty in that. In fact I think it is quite envisageable in the same way that some people appear at AAnonimous and tell their experience. What would preclude an adulterers anonimous from coming into the limelight and by means of self help and self exposure help people avoid that trap? Of course since a group should be witness, the AA might be attended by non adulterous, and make them feel naked. For me the proplem is extracting that meaning from jalada. It might be warranted, since in several of the instances of jild or julud (plural) this is as opposed to inner of the body or to heart, so that might be a part of outside "punishmente " to complement inside conviction of the ugliness of the deed. Or on the other hand, make the inside workings of the adulterer mind come out and understand the idiocy of it.
-
Flogging superficially without causing much pain 100 hundred times I would say that more than painful would be boring, and if it is done with the person fully dressed, may be I at least would loose track of the jalada part since no skin would be visible any more, but it may make easier to flog without in fact going beyonde the skin.
In fact I am not satisfied one hundred percent with any of these understanding and, as it happens with the daraba meaning, I am weary that in fact there might be some idiom or idiomatic use at play that we miss, and although when I began to write this message I was closer to the understanding 3. , in the course of writing it, in fact I got closer to the 2. So may be the patient people who have made some input into the thread or other persons might come up with more insights. It might also be that the Qur'an has left openings so that we may pick our understanding to fit the circumstance or what society is fit to assimilate.
Thanks and salaam
-
-
It is ONLY the skin that makes one feel/taste pain .
is imperative verb, second person, masculine, plural. You people flog. To whom they are asked to flog? each one of two of them . Flogging needs to be specified and linked with the number . Flogging is only to make the skin feel and convey the pain and is with something made of skin and is restricted to number 100.
-
peace huruf,
- Flogging superficially without causing much pain 100 hundred times I would say that more than painful would be boring, and if it is done with the person fully dressed, may be I at least would loose track of the jalada part since no skin would be visible any more, but it may make easier to flog without in fact going beyonde the skin.
Can you clarify your use of "boring" and how this is of relevance? Thanks.
As a side note, there was an alternative translation proposed by bro Anwar (progod) which was throwing down 100 times.
-
Can some one explain 425
In 425 the Qur`an prescribes that a slave woman guilty of indecency (fahishah) is to receive half the punishment that muhsanat should receive for that crime.Mr. Wakas?
In either case, it is established that the Qur`anic punishment for married women is 100 lashes and not death by stoning, since the latter cannot be halved.
But why half?
-
Can some one explain 425
In 425 the Qur`an prescribes that a slave woman guilty of indecency (fahishah) is to receive half the punishment that muhsanat should receive for that crime.Mr. Wakas?
But why half?
I would prefer if people conducted their own research first, then asked. In any case, there may be a few possibilities, but I would think the most likely implication is this is due to past circumstances, i.e. it is probable that "slave women" were used for sexual gratification prior to the rise of quran/islam, thus if they engage in this conduct outside of marriage in the future, they are given half the penalty due to weakness/history. This of course interestingly implies a few things about psyche, for those who reflect.
