Is ZANIA and ZANI about prostitution or adultery ?
-
You have raised some quite interesting points.
Adultery between spouses is dealt with in the same manner as zina, with an alternative to the 4 witnesses in 246Salaam Samia and all,
I am afraid why 246 and the following aayaats never used the word "Zina". Are they referring to some other subject and not zina? If so, then it will change the complete understanding of the word zina.
As for other acts of public lewdness less than sexual act, I believe that the sexual act is the upper limit. This does not mean that there should not be a law for other kinds. Drinking alcohol, for example, does not bear a punishment in the quraan, yet a drunken walking in the streets harassing others should be punished, although even harassment does not have a punishment in the qur'aan, The qur'aan is a guide, telling us examples of what is punishable and what's not, and we can deduce that crimes against the society and individuals are punishable, but drinking alcohol in your house or even in a pub without a problem is not.
I am always stuck on this, why are there no punishments for any thing, not even for Shirk and there is a very tough punishment just for an act of 15 minutes? I did not get this.
People who are doing shirk are misguiding others from their Lord, spending thousands of bugs spending their whole life to misguide from the true path of Allah, very openly, publicly but still not punishment for them and a very hard punishment for...... ???
I feel that "Zina" is something totally different, it has nothing to do with sex, because 416 there is no punishment, just "Eiza" that is only something uncomfortable as in case of "hayz" in 2222
May Allah increase us all in knowledge and guide us all to His true path. pr
Mohammed M. Khan -
Salaam Samia and all,
I am afraid why 246 and the following aayaats never used the word "Zina". Are they referring to some other subject and not zina? If so, then it will change the complete understanding of the word zina.
Salaam Khan
Because it is an ongoing subject and zina is mentioned from verse 2. No need to mention zina every time
Notice the mention of " azaab\ torture" describing the punishment for zina in verse 2 and verse 8
People who are doing shirk are misguiding others from their Lord, spending thousands of bugs spending their whole life to misguide from the true path of Allah, very openly, publicly but still not punishment for them and a very hard punishment for......
I do not know what you understand with the term "shirk", but according to my understanding, it is punishable. One of them is this punishment for zina.
I feel that "Zina" is something totally different, it has nothing to do with sex, because 416 there is no punishment
416 is not about two men and therefore not about homosexuality. Fahisha is a broad term, not necessarily linked only to sex. The verse addresses a group of men and women, not just men.
-
Sexual betrayal is the climax of betrayal and the one that is more difficult to pardon. It is a result of an already broken family, not the other way round, that's why divorce is the rule even with counter evidence (4 oaths) by the accused. A reaction that's not reasonable should not be taken as an excuse or a mitigating circumstances, just like in any other crime. It could even be taken as a crime in itself if the spouse does not take the case of betrayal to the judge.
As for being a deterrent from slandering others, yes, there is a verse for that, but there is also another verse for punishing the culprits and a command to mu'mins not to marry them.
The question is on what grounds are women alone punished because of extra marital pregnancies? Could pregnancy be taken as an alternative to the 4 witnesses? The answer is misunderstanding of the word "zina".
The problem I see here is that its a return to a Sunni islam doctrine where people get punished for sinning. There is no evidence in the Koran that people get punished for sins other than by God, as the case with the people of Lot and others. Got punishes sins and not man. The Koran can not say that humans have the right to disbelieve but have no right for public sex.
Its only where another party is involved where the Koran says that human society should punish. The Koran gave us that for murder, manslaughter, stealing, slandering and now we have Zina. In all these cases there is always another party involved. We know in Arab societies many women have been murdered, sometimes by her own family, because of such rumours. They call it honor killing. We know that family members of those women accused often become stigmatized.
So I don't see why pregnancy matters here and why should a woman pregnant be held accountable? Unless you are saying that this women sinned and therefore should be punished. Thats sounds like a return to sectarian Islam where the have elevated the authority of the prophet to divine powers and then transfered that authority to the Muslim ruler.
1682 But if they turn away from you, your only duty is a clear delivery of the Message
479-80 Say'Whatever good betides you is from God and whatever evil betides you is from your own self and that We have sent you to mankind only as a messenger and all sufficing is God as witness. Whoso obeys the Messenger, he indeed obeys God. And for those who turn away, We have not sent you as a keeper."
1753-54 And tell my servants that they should speak in a most kindly manner. Verily, Satan is always ready to stir up discord between men; for verily; Satan is mans foe .... Hence, We have not sent you with power to determine their Faith
24.54. Say "Obey God, and obey the Messenger. but if ye turn away, he is only responsible for the duty placed on him and ye for that placed on you. If ye obey him, ye shall be on right guidance. The Messenger's duty is only to preach the clear (Message).
8821 22; And so, exhort them your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel them to believe.
426 48 And whoso takes for patrons others besides God, over them does God keep a watch. Mark, you are not a keeper over them. But if they turn aside from you (do not get disheartened), for We have not sent you to be a keeper over them; your task is but to preach
6412 Obey God then and obey the Messenger, but if you turn away (no blame shall attach to our Messenger), for the duty of Our Messenger is just to deliver the message.
28.55-56 And when they hear vain talk, they turn away therefrom and say "To us our deeds, and to you yours; peace be to you we seek not the ignorant," It is true thou wilt not be able to guide whom thou lovest; but God guides those whom He will and He knows best those who receive guidance
Many of the verses that talks about obeying the prophet also emphasises the prophet's limited authority, something that the Islamic sects do not recognize. The ruler to them has the authoirty to punish people for what they consider sins like drinking alcohol, eating pork, not fasting Ramadan, watching pornos etc.
The Koran meanwhile focuses on crimes against another like stealing, killing, slandering of women falsely and oppression. It gave the believers the right to fight against those who fight them but not to transgress. It also gave people the right to defend themsleves against evictions from their lands. There is no talk about punishing people for something that does not concerning somebody else's right.
Adultery is the only place where the Koran diverted from this due to the fact that a adultery affects another party. But even then it placed strict standards on that but was lenient when it came to punishing slanders of women. Adultery needs four witnesses but the slander can get punished just from opening his mouth without four witnesses. Its clear that the verse made it very difficult to impliment on adultery but very easy to impliment on the slanderer. Further reading of the verse about the Zani and Zania shows us that the issue came up concerning slandering of one of the porphet's wife presumably. But adultery still affects another party as its a breaking of an oath between a man and a woman and is an act of betrayal.
The Koran can not order the porphet to punish people for sins, that God's job. The Koran gave people the right and freedom to disbelieve let alone sin. Plus how the Koran understands sins is very different than how the sects understand sins.
In the end the sects had no choice but to abrogate many of these verses, usually invoking the "sword verse". They claim that many of these verses that gave the prophet limited authority(over those who chose to disobey him) has been abrogated by verse 9-5 or verse 9-29.
However these verses were about the wars with the pagans, and verse 9-13 and many other verses makes it clear who instigated these battles and why. The Jizya verse (9-29) also was claimed by the sects to be a tax to be paid by non Muslims in an Islamic state for protection. However Jizya never came concerning the Medina community where the prophet and his followers had a community. And only came upon the believers entering of Mecca. Jizya could have easily been compensation for the loss of property and homes that the believers suffered after being forced into exile.The Koran forbade prophets from seeking any form of reward. They can however accept charity on behalf of the believers.
But the Sunnah claimed otherwise. In it the prophet was ordered to fight the people till they acknowledge monotheism and also in it the prophet ordered the execution of those who apostated. Thats why they abrogated many of the verses that limited his authority. Then they simply transfered that authority for the Muslim ruler by default. The Ridda war story about Abu Bakr is a case study of this. In that story Abu Bakr apparently fought people for not paying Zakat. Now the authority was transfered from God to the prophet to one of his companions. This made it very easy to then transfer that authority to the ruler. This is why you see places where Shariah law is implimented filled with such concepts like searching cars for alcohol or flogging people for watching pornos or not wearing proper attire.None of this should concern anyone but it has become a punishable sin. God only punishes those who did not get caiught and punished in this world. The sects claim that once punished the sin falls away and dissapears. You will not find such a concept in the Koran. There God punishes in a million ways and does not need humans to punish for him. I think the sects introduced this conc3ept to make people more accepting of this by making them think its better for them since God's punishment is more severe. They also introduced stoning the adulterer by claiming the Zina verse in the Koran is concerning fornification and not adultery. They claimed that the verse about stoning was lost and is not included in the Koran but the ruling remains.
This of course violated not only the freedom aspect of the Koran but also an eye for an eye and a life for a life. In the Koran, any punishment must be recipricol and proportionate to the crime and it also must be targeted towards the actual perpetraters of the crime and not someone else associated to the criminal as the case with tribal laws that simply targets anyone from that tribe. They broke this by lower the bar for executions. Some Sunni scholars also gave the authority to execute homosexuals and enslave female prisoners and execute male prisoners. Something the Koran forbade. The Koran gave two options for prisoners, either freedom or ransom of some sort. They gave this authority to the ruler. This is all very sad as the taking of someones life is no easy matter in the Koran. God should take life and not humans, but if a person takes a life then he lost his right to live, but even then the Koran gave exile from the community as another option for murder esepcially if the person shows repentance. So an eye for an eye and a tooth for tooth somehow ended up being an eye for an eye lash and a tooth for a jaw.
To be fair the Sunni orthodoxy rarely practiced some of these laws. We know of no time in history where adulterers were stoned to death. Apostasy was rarely practiced, unlike the Christians in Europe that practiced these laws left and right. So the Sunni jurist knew that some of these laws could be controversial. There is a rumor about Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab the founder or rather the revivalist of Salafism (some call it wahhabism) stoned a women to death. This was the only time in Islamic history that we heard such a thing.
Its very unfortunant the current Islamist in Iran and Sudan and the Salafis in generally never understood why these laws were controversial. But in doing so they exposed many aspect of the sects that people were not aware of. The Sufis provided a convenient cover as they shunned legalism. But even the clerics understood that these laws were controversial. Its not easy in Islam to execute outside of murder. But this wise tradition was broken. Thats very unfortunant as now we see the culture of death has spread among Muslims till Islam became synonymous with violence and killing. Once you lower the bar it spirals out of control.
One thing is crystal clear from all this. The Koran's take on human authority and freedom is RADICALLY different than how the sects understand it. Therefore the biggest difference between a Koranic state and a Sunni or Shia state will come in the form of the state's authority over the masses. It is this, more than anything else, that seperates the Koran from the Sunnah. Thats why the Abbasids championed the Sunnah over the Mutazilites. The Mutaziltes couldn't find the ink inthe Koran to give them such draconian authority. The sects did that by first bringing the divine authority from God to prophet, then propet to Caliph (companions) and now that authority is in Omar Al Bashir, Khamenei, Mullah Omar and Al Saud. And thats very sad.
The question of authority is only one aspect where the Quran and Sunnah differ. It you look at the story of Abu Bakr and the Ridda war, many of the companions we are told differed with him. So now the ruler can impose zakat and persecute those who chose to not pay or he can simply ignored it. Sudan at one point had a zakat to be paid to the sate often ending in private bank account.
The story of stoning the aduleter is another case point. In that story the prophet first refused to impliment the punishment and turned away, only upon the woman's insistence did he then implimented the punishment. Now the ruler ca either turn a blind eye to all kinds of sexual activities as is the case in Dubai, or chose to impose harsh punishment as is the case with Afghanistan, Sudan and Saudi Arabia. This is how many of the Sunnah appear. It always gives wide latitude to the ruler.
No doubt Mutaziletes could not find the ink in the Koran for this authority. The prophetic authority is the highest authority humans can have. This is why the Pharoah feared Moses as Moses questioned his divine authoity. Pharoah claimed to be God and had the auhority of life and death. The sects knew, especially after the collapse of the Ummayid dynasty that without having absolute authority the Abbasids would not last. The limited authority the prophet had gave them a hard time to find authority of the kind the dictator wanted. So they elevated that authority where the prophet now punishes sins the way God does and the police searches for sins the way angels record a person's deeds. The Mutazilies who only had the Quran as a source were seen as useless.
That authority the sunnah gave Muhammad is nowehere to be found in the Koran.
-
I do not know what you understand with the term "shirk", but according to my understanding, it is punishable. One of them is this punishment for zina.
Salaam Samia,
Can you please get the aayaats of your understanding on the above highlighted part? Or do you mean to say that it is punishable by Allah not naas!
416 is not about two men and therefore not about homosexuality. Fahisha is a broad term, not necessarily linked only to sex. The verse addresses a group of men and women, not just men.
As per my understanding it is referring to two men. If not, please clarify it for me.
Al-laziiy = single person
Al-lazaani = two persons as it is "mathna " of al-laziiy
Al-lazaiiyni = two persons as it is also "mathna " of al-laziiy
Al-lazeena = plural either three or more than threeMay Allah guide us all to His true path pr
Mohammed M. Khan -
Bigmo
Are you sure you are referring to my post?
What did I write to make you understand this
So I don't see why pregnancy matters here and why should a woman pregnant be held accountable? Unless you are saying that this women sinned and therefore should be punished. Thats sounds like a return to sectarian Islam where the have elevated the authority of the prophet to divine powers and then transfered that authority to the Muslim ruler.
?
And why shouldn't a society punish those who transgress or break the rules?
-
Salaam Samia,
Can you please get the aayaats of your understanding on the above highlighted part? Or do you mean to say that it is punishable by Allah not naas!
I wish there are verses that say shirk is such and such. But remember that believers can aslo be mushriks as per this verse (6151)
The first command of the verses of the Straight Path where the absolute prohibitions are mentioned is do not set idols beside the God. My understanding is that since what follows are absolute prohibitions, i.e there are no if's or but's as in other prohibitions of eating pork or drinking alcohol, any one who does not respect these prohibitions is a moshrik, because they would say yes I killed him because he raped my daughter or because she betrayed me with another man..e.g, thus setting the rule of his ego above the rule of God who does not allow killing for these reasons. All these absolute prohibitions when not respected are being committed for another rule. This is shirk. And they are all against the community and thus call for punishment. No wonder that you can never find a constitution in the world that allows any of the clauses of the Straight Path or at least not restrict them.As per my understanding it is referring to two men. If not, please clarify it for me.
Al-laziiy = single person
Al-lazaani = two persons as it is "mathna " of al-laziiy
Al-lazaiiyni = two persons as it is also "mathna " of al-laziiy
Al-lazeena = plural either three or more than threeMay Allah guide us all to His true path pr
Mohammed M. KhanYou forgot the combinations which take the non gendered masculine. A female and a male are also al-lazaani. Just like the "minkum" which does not necessarily address men only. We have to take into consideration who is being addressed here. These "two" are from the group being addressed.
We should also take into consideration Justice as an important attribute of God. Is it fair to set different punishment to the same crime based on gender only? Is this a sunnah of allah? Doesn't He set the same punishment for zani and zania; and he-thief and she-thief? Are the two punishments mentioned for them (feminine) and the two (of you) even comparable? -
Samia
It's interesting that you mention fatherless children "yatamaa". The qur'aan sets a solution for them, but not a punishment for the parents in verse 43, erroneously considered as a green light to polygamy without restrictions.
And whats qurans solution for motherless ''yatama'' children? Polyandry with or without restrictions?
-
I go away for only three years, come back and find that you are still discussing the meaning of "zina"? ;D
Zina has its origin in Hebrew and it means "the act of prostitute of the altar"; that's performing sex in public.
From the quraan, my understanding is that the act has to be known to people in order to be able NOT to marry those public performers. The evidence needed is the minimum requirement for a public 4 witnesses. Any other evidence, being it less than 4 witnesses, or even pregnancy, is not permitted, because the sin here is performing sex IN PUBLIC, even between married couple, and not the result of this sex.
The only exception of this evidence is when the spouse see their partner with another person. In this case, four oaths replace the four required witnesses, and a fifth oath to be cursed by the god if they were not telling the truth.
As for sex outside marriage, it is a sin, but not for the community to punish. Punishable crimes are those against the community.I agree with you 100%. The four witness requirements clearly shows that we are talking about public sex, or husband swapping or wife swapping act.
A woman who cheats her husband and sleeps with another man or vice versa, its NOT up to the community to punish her, its only God who can do that, and the husband of course have the right to either forgive her or divorce her. So Simple is that.
-
Samia
And whats qurans solution for motherless ''yatama'' children? Polyandry with or without restrictions?
To marry their mother and thus give the children a father figure and a chance to integrate in society. This is the sole condition for polygamy. The basic command is to marry the singles (2432), but absolute conditions require absolute measures.
-
To marry their mother and thus give the children a father figure and a chance to integrate in society. This is the sole condition for polygamy. The basic command is to marry the singles (2432), but absolute conditions require absolute measures.
You missed my point. Do you know what polyandry means? Polyandry means a marriage where a woman has multiple husbands. I am talking about children who lost their mothers. Whats the quranic solution for them? Can a married woman marry their father and thus give the children a mother figure and a chance to integrate in society?
-
You missed my point. Do you know what polyandry means? Polyandry means a marriage where a woman has multiple husbands. I am talking about children who lost their mothers. Whats the quranic solution for them? Can a married woman marry their father and thus give the children a mother figure and a chance to integrate in society?
I know what polyandry is. But I thought you knew what a fatherless child is. I do not mean an orphan. This is not a fatherless child. A father can deny his child and claim it was not his and disappears. Never heard of a mother who denies a child and claims she is not his mother and disappears, leaving it with the father... confused
-
I know what polyandry is. But I thought you knew what a fatherless child is. I do not mean an orphan. This is not a fatherless child. A father can deny his child and claim it was not his and disappears. Never heard of a mother who denies a child and claims she is not his mother and disappears, leaving it with the father... confused
but we have widow men right? And in cases of divorce it have been seen that the father gets the costudy of the children and the mother runs away with some other men. so in every society you would find children without mothers. Now can a married woman marry their father and give a mother figure to these children as well (polyandry). ?
-
but we have widow men right? And in cases of divorce it have been seen that the father gets the costudy of the children and the mother runs away with some other men. so in every society you would find children without mothers. Now can a married woman marry their father and give a mother figure to these children as well (polyandry). ?
But I am not speaking of widows or widowers. Polygamy is not to solve adults problems. They have choices and they can solve their problems. Even their children will not have problems that have to be solved by their parent getting married. If it's an economical problem, they are not different from other poor children with parents.
As I mentioned before, it's a solution to children who do not have fathers, not orphans who had fathers but died. It's to give them a father's figure who will help them integrate in the society like any other child. This is why it's about marrying their mothers, not fathers. There is no such a thing as a motherless child. Even if there were mothers who leave the child and disappear, this child does not have a problem. He already has a name. and a father. Single fathers are either widowers or divorced. Single mothers are either widows, divorced or mothers of fatherless children. It is these children who may have a problem integrating in the society.
Of course this is no more a problem in the West. The government and the society took care of it, so there is no "fear of being unfair to fatherless children" and thus no need for polygamy. -
But I am not speaking of widows or widowers. Polygamy is not to solve adults problems. They have choices and they can solve their problems. Even their children will not have problems that have to be solved by their parent getting married. If it's an economical problem, they are not different from other poor children with parents.
As I mentioned before, it's a solution to children who do not have fathers, not orphans who had fathers but died. It's to give them a father's figure who will help them integrate in the society like any other child. This is why it's about marrying their mothers, not fathers. There is no such a thing as a motherless child. Even if there were mothers who leave the child and disappear, this child does not have a problem. He already has a name. and a father. Single fathers are either widowers or divorced. Single mothers are either widows, divorced or mothers of fatherless children. It is these children who may have a problem integrating in the society.
Of course this is no more a problem in the West. The government and the society took care of it, so there is no "fear of being unfair to fatherless children" and thus no need for polygamy.Your argument is illogical. Do you assume that we dont have children without mothers ? Giving children a mother doesn't it help them integrate in the society as well? How does a child whos father ran away become more integrated in the society by having a step father than a motherless child whos mother ran away and now has a step mother?
And secondly you say that motherless children does not have a problem because they have a name. So you mean that this whole polygyny issue is about giving someone a name? So a married man shall cheat on his wife and sleep with the mother of a orphan in order to give that orphan a name ?? There is something wrong with the logic in this argument. I am sorry to say it, but I think its AS important for a child to have a mother as a father, or maybe it can be argued that its more important for a child to in fact have a mother, since its the mother who spends more time with the child. -
Your argument is illogical. Do you assume that we dont have children without mothers ? Giving children a mother doesn't it help them integrate in the society as well? How does a child whos father ran away become more integrated in the society by having a step father than a motherless child whos mother ran away and now has a step mother?
And secondly you say that motherless children does not have a problem because they have a name. So you mean that this whole polygyny issue is about giving someone a name? So a married man shall cheat on his wife and sleep with the mother of a orphan in order to give that orphan a name ?? There is something wrong with the logic in this argument. I am sorry to say it, but I think its AS important for a child to have a mother as a father, or maybe it can be argued that its more important for a child to in fact have a mother, since its the mother who spends more time with the child.Since you speak of a child whose mother ran away and belittle the importance of a name to a child, I understand that you are unable to get what I mean. will have to put it in another way. In the past, in England for example, these children were called bastards, illegitimate children, s.o.b, s.o w....I suppose you know of that. What does that mean? Could a child living with his father be treated that way? I am not talking political incorrectness here, and don't say mother and father are the same, because what I believe or what you believe is not what many societies believed or still believe. Mothers killed their babies to avoid, and make the baby avoid such a life. There are also children resulting from rape. All these children have mothers and no fathers. They are still a problem in many societies, especially in the middle east and Muslim countries where some of them lash the mother or even kill her and no one would take the "illegitimate child". Does this happen to children accepted by their fathers even if the mother fled away with a lover? Would this father have a problem getting married? No. Why then should his problem be solved by an already married woman? As for the mother of an illegitimate child, her marriage can be very problematic and the burden will fall on the child. Here comes this solution as the last resort.
-
I agree with you 100%. The four witness requirements clearly shows that we are talking about public sex, or husband swapping or wife swapping act.
A woman who cheats her husband and sleeps with another man or vice versa, its NOT up to the community to punish her, its only God who can do that, and the husband of course have the right to either forgive her or divorce her. So Simple is that.
"A woman who cheats her husband and sleeps with another man or vice versa, its NOT up to the community to punish her, its only God who can do that, and the husband of course have the right to either forgive her or divorce her. So Simple is that"
That is very naive. rotfl
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE4gGtpcGno
http//www.break.com/usercontent/2006/12/20/bike-racer-caught-cheating-198063
http//www.metacafe.com/watch/442607/guy_films_himself_cheating_and_gets_caught/
http//www.break.com/index/wife-caught-cheating.html#
http//mytings.net/video/cheating-husband-beaten-up-by
Its worse than stealing.
My favorite
http//dumpalink.com/videos/This-Guy-got-Caught-Cheating-on-his-Girl-6fd7.html
Koranic justice at its best
http//3.bp.blogspot.com/-iJFY46Db9HQ/Tkco5G7TurI/AAAAAAAACFU/tnDh-1Wcogw/s1600/Ten+Commandments.gif
-
Salaam Bigmo
WITT is quite right. I do not know why you laugh.
The only correction I would do to her post is that the address is for both spouses, not just the husband.If they want to forgive, as long as it was not public, which takes it to another dimension, no one would know about the incident and the spouse will not take it to the authorities. If, on the other hand, they want divorce, it has to be taken to the authority. The claimant will have to bear witness four times that the incident happened. This is in lieu of the 4 witnesses. The defendant's defense is to bear witness 4 times that the claimant was wrong. The result will be divorce.
This is per verses 246-9 -
Since you speak of a child whose mother ran away and belittle the importance of a name to a child, I understand that you are unable to get what I mean. will have to put it in another way. In the past, in England for example, these children were called bastards, illegitimate children, s.o.b, s.o w....I suppose you know of that. What does that mean? Could a child living with his father be treated that way? I am not talking political incorrectness here, and don't say mother and father are the same, because what I believe or what you believe is not what many societies believed or still believe. Mothers killed their babies to avoid, and make the baby avoid such a life. There are also children resulting from rape. All these children have mothers and no fathers. They are still a problem in many societies, especially in the middle east and Muslim countries where some of them lash the mother or even kill her and no one would take the "illegitimate child". Does this happen to children accepted by their fathers even if the mother fled away with a lover? Would this father have a problem getting married? No. Why then should his problem be solved by an already married woman? As for the mother of an illegitimate child, her marriage can be very problematic and the burden will fall on the child. Here comes this solution as the last resort.
Ok so because people of UK were a bunch of idiots in the past, we should have men sleeping around with 4 women? What about changing the negative attitude towards children? And do you think that a child is less a bastard because someone with 3 wives and a bunch of other children comes and sleep with this childs mother??
Now do you assume that all cultures are like the UK ? What about cultures were the childs name derive from his mother? If the mother ran away in this society would you suggest polyandry?
They are still a problem in many societies, especially in the middle east and Muslim countries where some of them lash the mother or even kill her and no one would take the "illegitimate child". Does this happen to children accepted by their fathers even if the mother fled away with a lover?
Yes yes we know that the world hates women. But you said polygyny was a solution for the child not for the adults? Ok so because the world especially middle east hates women and kill them we should have men with multiple wives?????? What about punishing the killers so these crimes dont happen? Would you cure women hating with more anti-women rules(polygyny)
Would this father have a problem getting married? No. Why then should his problem be solved by an already married woman? As for the mother of an illegitimate child, her marriage can be very problematic and the burden will fall on the child. Here comes this solution as the last resort.
Lol. So your point is that single moms cant get married again thats why we shall have married men sleeping with them. But single fathers dont have a problem getting married men so we dont need married women to sleep with them. But you just said that polygyny is not for adults? First of all, there are at least AS many women, who dont want to marry single fathers as there are men who dont want to marry single mothers. The majority of people regardless of gender, always try to marry counterparts who havent been married before. Secondly, there are still SOME people, both men and women who dont have a problem with getting married to single mothers or fathers if they like that person.
So your whole argument about that nobody wants to marry single mothers is flawed since I have seen many cases IN MIDDLE EAST where a woman with 2 children got married with a virgin man. But for the sake of the argument, if nobody wanted to marry a single mother, than why do you assume that a family father wanted to marry her? He would of course, as the rest also look after ''virgins''.
Again the problem with all your argument is, that it also applies for polyandry, which you of course cant tolerate like most muslims. To imagine a woman having more than one husband make the blood boil inside the muslims of anger, but having a man cheating on his wife by getting married again is quite fine. Muslims are mostly experts in practising these hateful dobbel standards which is the reason for why we have so much woman-opression which you suggest would be cured at least for her children, by having her getting married and fu*ked by a family father. What about proper human care???? Or what about encouraging single, virgin men to get married with single mothers out of love and compassion??
Secondly, I dont see anywhere in quran 4,3 talking about that nobody wants to marry a mother with a child etc. Its something YOU think because you have seen so much woman opression. And i am sorry to say it, but you cant solve anti-woman attitudes by having men cheating on their wives. -
"A woman who cheats her husband and sleeps with another man or vice versa, its NOT up to the community to punish her, its only God who can do that, and the husband of course have the right to either forgive her or divorce her. So Simple is that"
That is very naive. rotfl
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE4gGtpcGno
http//www.break.com/usercontent/2006/12/20/bike-racer-caught-cheating-198063
http//www.metacafe.com/watch/442607/guy_films_himself_cheating_and_gets_caught/
http//www.break.com/index/wife-caught-cheating.html#
http//mytings.net/video/cheating-husband-beaten-up-by
Its worse than stealing.
My favorite
http//dumpalink.com/videos/This-Guy-got-Caught-Cheating-on-his-Girl-6fd7.html
Koranic justice at its best
http//3.bp.blogspot.com/-iJFY46Db9HQ/Tkco5G7TurI/AAAAAAAACFU/tnDh-1Wcogw/s1600/Ten+Commandments.gif
hahaha I liked the last video loooooooooooool. its my favorite too. I know the ten commandments, and I agree with them. However, its the requirement of 4 witnesses who bother me, since its impossible to get 4 witnesses in cases of adultery?
-
Ok so because people of UK were a bunch of idiots in the past, we should have men sleeping around with 4 women? What about changing the negative attitude towards children? And do you think that a child is less a bastard because someone with 3 wives and a bunch of other children comes and sleep with this childs mother??
Please cool down.
At least we agree that they were a bunch of idiots.
Then they solved it in a better way changing the attitude towards these children.
We in our countries are still this bunch of idiots. Until we reach the wisdom of societies that changed the attitude towards the children, individuals can solve it in this way. This is an individual solution. It is not a law nor an obligation. It's "equity".
You are furious because you relate to the wife or the wife-to-be. You are unable to relate to a young woman with an illegitimate child in an unfair society, where her child would be cursed all his life and will never be accepted in the society. That's if they even survived. And one wouldn't know whether to feel sorry if they die or be happy for them for being free from a cruel life ahead.
And by the way, I haven't so far seen a "legitimate" polygamy. You see men following their desires and amassing women. But they never marry a broken woman with an illegitimate child.