Is ZANIA and ZANI about prostitution or adultery ?
-
You do not have to apologize, even for challenging me. That's OK. We learn from each other, and I learn from imaginative minds
In the case where one with friends decide to watch a couple having sex. How did they get to watch them? By sneaking? We speak here about the permissibility of the evidence.
Lewdness in any form is prohibited, even in secret as per 6151. There is a difference between prohibition and punishment. Not everything that's prohibited is punishable by the authorities. Only crimes against the society or individuals are. The others are left to God to punish for or pardon.
The case of husband / wife is a very sensitive matter. For that, God allowed an alternative to 4 witnesses as per 246 considering it a grave crime against the other spouse that calls for punishment and end of marriage. Other relatives do not enjoy this benefit. They still have to come up with 4 witnesses.
The case of rape is treated wrongly in Muslim societies where 4 witnesses are required. This is a different crime, not zina, and should be proven by any means.
-
Sorry, i dont quite understand. Zina seems to be commonly defined as sex outside of marriage.
I know. And I know that some believe that 4 witnesses are meant to make it difficult to punish people. We ended up with women only being punished for getting pregnant 4 witnesses is not respected here; and the partner could not be punished because there are no 4 witnesse. Do you see the problem with this definition of adultery and the discrepancy with the 4 witness when applied to other than public sex?
What's commonly defined is not necessarily the true definition. Muslims have been absorbed in studying hadith and other Islamic heritage at the expense of studying the qur'aan. Add to this the rampant illetracy in these countries, one can hardly speak of any serious study of any verse.
Where are you getting your 'public sex' definition from for the time that Quran was revealed? a word can have a root meaning and also common usage that changes within a relatively short space of time ('gay' being a modern example, where the commonly understood meaning of the word changed radically in less than 50 years). So to use a definition that existed long before Quran isnt necessarily of help (it would also be helpful to know what your sources are regarding the pre-Quran definition). Is there not evidence that the word at the time was commonly known to mean sex outside of marriage? if not, why is it so usually defined that way now?
If you have any document in Arabic at the time of the qur'aan, or even a century after it, with this word in use as adultery, I will change my mind.
Also, It doesnt have to be public sex for 4 witnesses to witness two people having sex, people could walk in on people having extra marital sex.
Have you ever walked in with your friends on people having sex, whether marital or extra? I haven't, although I lived in many countries and lived for quite a long time.
Also, if someone suspects their partner of commiting adultery, could they not catch them out with 3 other witnesses? why would this be a problem?
Also regarding 'lewdness', a husband can punish his wife for lewdness can he not (beating verse)?
- read 246
- No, he can't.
- Verse 434 ( beating verse) does not contain any word that relates to "lewdness".
- Verse 24 6 tells the spouse what to do when they accuse their partner, and how to overcome the 4-witness prerequisite.
-
I think the public sex does not address the part of betrayal as its this, not the sex, that invokes a reaction. A reaction that often can lead to violence. Most of all it also breaks a family.
The goal of the verse is to stop people talking about the subject. Cause, even if a person witnessed something, and that very likely, he can't say anything because he needs other witnesses. He may be saying the truth, but in God's eyes, not humans, he is considered a liar. The verse itself came in the occassion as a rumor spread about some sexual misconduct.
Eevn if people are having public sex, who will complain? Its always the partner or spouse who will invoke some reaction. People can complain about public sex because of indecency. But the Koran can not talk abot lashing because of public decency, but it can when it comes to betrayal. Its just human nature that people can not handle their partner or spouse cheating on them with another. Public sex can be an orgy of people who couldn't care less.
Because of the violence that it brings, the issue is serious. It also can break a family perhaps more than anything else.
I am not sure about the pregnancy part. If a women gets pregnant so what? The important part here is identifying who the father is. But thats no violation of somebody else. The Koran tends to allow people to interfere when somebody else's right is violated. So I am not sure what pregnancy has to do with it other than proving that the women had sex either by her own decision or was forced into it.
I still see the verse primarily concerned with people slandering and involving themselves in other's affairs, while the adultery part is similar to Moses and the kill yourself verse. It may the right punishment , but its not easy to carry out. Its not easy to flog a woman, as the case in Sudan showed. Just like its not easy to kill yourself, even if that is the technical punishment. It shocked the nation as Sudanese only flog men.
Only people of strong discipline and faith can do that. Like Judas did in the Gospel. He did the right thing.
-
I think the public sex does not address the part of betrayal as its this, not the sex, that invokes a reaction. A reaction that often can lead to violence. Most of all it also breaks a family.
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 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".
That exactly is the reason why four eye witnessess is the condition, no other evidence is permissible in the court. Pregnancy is neither evidence nor proof of Zina.
Zina is a willfully consented act, both parties willingly and lovingly approaching for this act.
A woman can become or made pregnant even when she did not have any idea as to how has she become pregnant. In deep sleep, temporary unconsciouness, insertion through syrnge etc could also result in pregnancy, while she might not have even felt the insertion.
-
You do not have to apologize, even for challenging me. That's OK. We learn from each other, and I learn from imaginative minds
In the case where one with friends decide to watch a couple having sex. How did they get to watch them? By sneaking? We speak here about the permissibility of the evidence.
Lewdness in any form is prohibited, even in secret as per 6151. There is a difference between prohibition and punishment. Not everything that's prohibited is punishable by the authorities. Only crimes against the society or individuals are. The others are left to God to punish for or pardon.
The case of husband / wife is a very sensitive matter. For that, God allowed an alternative to 4 witnesses as per 246 considering it a grave crime against the other spouse that calls for punishment and end of marriage. Other relatives do not enjoy this benefit. They still have to come up with 4 witnesses.
The case of rape is treated wrongly in Muslim societies where 4 witnesses are required. This is a different crime, not zina, and should be proven by any means.
Salam
By watching a couple I meant the couple indeed knows people are watching which would be Zina (public sex). I find it hard to comprehend that the actors will be punished harshly but not the audience.
Lewdness in any sort is prohibited, yes. To decide what lewdness means is left up to us as individuals to value. You and I might find something not lewd whereas the exact same act would be considered lewd by someone else. With lewdness Allah lets us put our own boundaries. Of course there are two limits as far as I understand, not oppressive and not approaching people with lust (sexual harassement in todays lingo). That is why I say that when/if you are feeling lewd, stop &Rape falls under a whole other category, oppression. There is absolutely no minimum requirements of witnesses for such a crime.
I am trying to find the technicality in how a law would work, there is no use having a law with loopholes, right? Not only that, when it comes to the law of Allah it also has to be timeless.
I can understand zina=adultery because the act has enormous consequences not only to the ones involved but also the innocent (children, other family members). Throughout the cultures and religions adultery has always been fought and regarded as one of the biggest betrayals. Public sex however does not carry the same "weight", and I cannot comprehend how Allah could set down a number for what is private and what is public. Playing the devil's advocate I could say that a sex show is not punishable as long as the audience is not bigger than three people.If the law of Allah is timeless, then Zina has problems today. A movie or play illustrating a private act between husband and wife but not transgressing the value of lewdness set down by the community, it would still be regarded as punishable with a 100 stripes. To me, it doesnt make sense....
I have never seen the harsh punishment for zina=adultery to have anything to do with the betrayal of ones spouse. I see the harsh punishment for zina=uncommitted sex. I see it as a punishment for an act that could result in making a baby that you have absolutely no responsibility for or committment to. Since the arab orphan means "fatherless child" it make sense to me. The man is punished for (or at least willingly risking it)creating a baby that will grow up without a father's committment and the woman is punished for creating a baby that will grow up without a father.
If the committment is there it is not Zina anymore. If the two people involved are willing to take responsibility and "suffer the consequence )" then there is no harm. This is shown in 245 where if you repent and promise to do good (take responsibility) you shall not be punished (actually this leads me to a question, is 245 speaking of the people committing zina or only the accusers? Reading an english Quran suggests it is both)
Samia, I must stress again the point that I am not challenging you (ie saying you are wrong). I am very open to zina=public sex, but right now I am having trouble connecting the dots. -
Well Emil
I agree totally with what Huruf says.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 246As 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.
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.
-
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). ?