The four witnesses for adultery
-
Peace peace Huruf, good logic, Ayisha, and Amina!
Thank you for responding and providing me with the appropriate verses as well.
I am a bit traditional in my thinking and interpretation of verses. As a result, I find that zina can encompass both adultery (married people) and fornication (having pre-martial sex, neither party is married). So, in light of adultery (married circumstances), I do see those verses clearly . However, what if two people are accused of fornication (neither party married), does the same logic apply? Or, can both still be accused by four witnesses without those witnesses having brought some type of solid proof to the court? I hope I am making my question clear, God willing.
-
Peace peace Huruf, good logic, Ayisha, and Amina!
Thank you for responding and providing me with the appropriate verses as well.
I am a bit traditional in my thinking and interpretation of verses. As a result, I find that zina can encompass both adultery (married people) and fornication (having pre-martial sex, neither party is married). So, in light of adultery (married circumstances), I do see those verses clearly . However, what if two people are accused of fornication (neither party married), does the same logic apply? Or, can both still be accused by four witnesses without those witnesses having brought some type of solid proof to the court? I hope I am making my question clear, God willing.
24.2 The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.
24.3 Let no man guilty of adultery or fornication marry and but a woman similarly guilty, or an Unbeliever nor let any but such a man or an Unbeliever marry such a woman to the Believers such a thing is forbidden.
24.4 And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not four witnesses (to support their allegations),- flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after for such men are wicked transgressors;-
24.11 Those who brought forward the lie are a body among yourselves think it not to be an evil to you; On the contrary it is good for you to every man among them (will come the punishment) of the sin that he earned, and to him who took on himself the lead among them, will be a penalty grievous.
24.12 Why did not the believers - men and women - when ye heard of the affair,- put the best construction on it in their own minds and say, "This (charge) is an obvious lie"?
24.14 Why did they not bring four witnesses to prove it? When they have not brought the witnesses, such men, in the sight of Allah, (stand forth) themselves as liars!
24.15 Behold, ye received it on your tongues, and said out of your mouths things of which ye had no knowledge; and ye thought it to be a light matter, while it was most serious in the sight of Allah.
24.16 And why did ye not, when ye heard it, say? - "It is not right of us to speak of this Glory to Allah! this is a most serious slander!"
24.17 Allah doth admonish you, that ye may never repeat such (conduct), if ye are (true) Believers.
The accusers should be believers so these verses should 'put the fear of God in them' for telling a lie about what they don't know, so unless they've seen them doing the deed .......................
it's pretty much bring your 4 witnesses to swear by God they absolutely know this happened as they saw it, witnessed it. You can't be witness to adultery without seeing it for yourself.
-
Peace )
I apologize if this topic has already been discussed. You can close this thread and redirect to a thread with a similar topic in this case.
Okay, so you know how it is required to have four witnesses in order to prove adultery?
I was just wondering something about that in that, do the four witnesses need to bring forth any concrete proof? Or, can adultery be proven merely through eyewitness testimony? I would think that an eyewitness testimony void of any proof (video, pictures, etc) could easily be a lie orchestrated by a group of people against two individuals they collectively strongly dislike?
In my head I'm thinking, "who's going to commit adultery in front of four other people?" So, it has to be some weird situation on which a case could be built upon. ???
Please share your thoughts.
absolutely!
there wasn't a number system as such , four doesn't mean four you need a dictionery but you will be replacing the other numbers aswell with other meanings and believe it the translation then appears much more comprehensible.
But not many people want to or believe in that method.
&
-
Peace Goodlogic, Ayisha, and Amina,
Thank you for highlighting the verses for me, I've read them before but as you can see I am still questioning the matter further. Basically, we would be taking the eyewitness testimony as truth based on the fact that only the believing people would come forth with these allegations after having witnessed the act. However, we cannot know who is a believer and who is not as we cannot measure one's sincerity. In a secular court of law, allegations must be supported by hard evidence (especially when the allegation will lead to a very severe consequence). I do not know who is a believer and who is not at the end of day, only God knows this. We know that there are many people in this world who are not so God fearing let alone have a conscience to keep those verses in mind. As a result, should we not have requirements to ensure that a group of people do not make a choice to blatantly lie? In my mind, a group of people can be witness to anything if they make a choice to blatantly lie in order to somehow further their own agenda.
This may sound like a far fetched scenario, but anything is possible. This is why I think law books are so tedious and lengthy as they cover even the nitty gritty aspects.
Whenever I think of this issue, I look to this verse
2111 And they said "None shall enter Paradise except those who are Jewish or Nazarenes;" this is what they wish! Say
"Bring forth your proof if you are truthful."I think that if people are going to come together to make any kind of outrageous claim or allegation, then they must bring forth some kind of proof. I know this verse relates to a different topic, however, the part of people having to bring forth some kind of proof for their claims, it rings in my mind. Plus, it makes for a more full proof way of ensuring that we do not punish those who could possibly be innocent.
Peace 357,
Thanks for your input ). However, I must disagree with you on this point as I see the number 4 very plainly. Do you have a translation perhaps with such changes that I could take a look at? I am just curious as to how it would appear more comprehensible.
-
Why is an only witness not valid? Because you cannot question him or her and catch possible lies or untruths. You need anywhere for anything two witnesses so you can contrast what they say. If you ask for four witnesses it is clearly to be able to question them throughly and ascertain that what they say is true and exact and not imagination or animosity or whagtever. Of course they should be questioned according to all the rules of questionning. That is the way I see it. Otherwise, they are going to say what we saw adultery?
Salaam
Realease, salaam,
Under any justice arrangement, witnesses are there to be questioned. That is their purpose, that they answer satisfactorily to whatever they are asked concerning that to which they give testimony. It is absurdity itself that to proof any crime you have to question the witnesses and that when it comes to zina, where four witnesses are required so that the proof is more stringent, the usual purpose of witnesses should be disregarded and simply take whatever they say and not ascertain it.
Of course the are questionned they must be questioned, because otherwise how are you going to determine that they are not one of those false witnesses which they Qur'an, in those ayas also are charged and punished for giving false testimony? Witnesses suddenly have become not witnesses but God's representatives and therefore guaranteed beyond any doubt?
Nobody can be condemned without a through interrogation of the witnesses which testigy to what they are being charged, that is a baisc precondition for ANY system of judicial administration even the most basic and primary. Contradicting witnesses is a fundamental matter. Or witnesses are divine? The very question is out of this world. And, I repeat, the fact that anywhere for anything more than one witness is required for somethign to be considered as proved through that means is because of the possibility of witnesses contradicting each other if they are not fully truthful, or they don't remember well, etc. and usually they must be questionned separately, of course.
Salaam
-
Peace Huruf, )
Can you clarify what you mean by taking whatever they say but not ascertaining it? I did not understand this part.
Yes, questioning is very important as to check one's story against the stories of the others. However, sometimes these types of allegations can be pre-planned or master minded by a group of people. They may make it a point to ensure that their stories match up closely while rehearsing the matter as well. If the witnesses contradict in their stories, then the case can be thrown out right away. However, if they do not contradict where it is expected, then is the accused person condemned to the lashings?
The requirement of four witnesses is a great way to weed out those who are lying without having planned everything out well enough. However, for those who are even more sinister and sly in their attempts, their cleverly planned out testimonies may give the courts inaccurate yet believable information. I'm just saying that the courts and the public should be prepared for this kind of thing, as even stranger things have happened, and we do not want to even by mistake hand this punishment down to someone who may be innocent. I believe that a thorough investigation must include proof of evidence somewhere. In this, we must use our intellect and be prepared for that curve ball, as this is a severe type of physical punishment (depending on how people look at it).
-
Peace Huruf, )
Can you clarify what you mean by taking whatever they say but not ascertaining it? I did not understand this part.
Yes, questioning is very important as to check one's story against the stories of the others. However, sometimes these types of allegations can be pre-planned or master minded by a group of people. They may make it a point to ensure that their stories match up closely while rehearsing the matter as well. If the witnesses contradict in their stories, then the case can be thrown out right away. However, if they do not contradict where it is expected, then is the accused person condemned to the lashings?
The requirement of four witnesses is a great way to weed out those who are lying without having planned everything out well enough. However, for those who are even more sinister and sly in their attempts, their cleverly planned out testimonies may give the courts inaccurate yet believable information. I'm just saying that the courts and the public should be prepared for this kind of thing, as even stranger things have happened, and we do not want to even by mistake hand this punishment down to someone who may be innocent. I believe that a thorough investigation must include proof of evidence somewhere. In this, we must use our intellect and be prepared for that curve ball, as this is a severe type of physical punishment (depending on how people look at it).
But in the Qur'an there is nothing to indicate that no other means of proof are unnecessary. Under the situation you describe it is a mtter of course that if there is the least ossibility of collusion every measure must be taken to ensure that witnesses are not in colllusion and do not lie. That is obviously upon the court tribunal to do so, to make sure that witnesses are fraudulent that to ensure that if they are they are properly punished. How can that be a matter of contention after all the lengths the ayas that deal with this insist on not slandering? What gretar slandering than liying under oath and slandering the most public way conceivable. Of course that should be the first care of any court.
And that is what I meant by ascertaining. It is upon the court to ascertain that the witnessess are truthful, not to take any witness for granted just for the heck of it.
Salaam
-
Peace Huruf,
However, we must keep in mind that courts can often be corrupt. We see examples of this on a daily basis. It also acts as a preventive measure from any corruptions from within the courts or judicial system. The four witnesses requirement prescribed by God is a good way to quickly throw the case out if it proves fraudulent from the get go. Meaning, if the stories completely don't match up or if one witness succumbs to the pressure of interrogation, then we can quickly arrive to the fact that the allegations were most likely false.
Though, we may approach a case, where the four witnesses provide an excellent testimony to the the alleged crime. They may have pre-planned this and are very thorough leaving the courts with little choice by to rule against the party that was accused . Often, you'll see such allegations pop up in the political area in order to silence and slander any unconventional figures.
God is my witness, I am not trying to undermine or underestimate His prescribed method of punishment or legislation. However, I know that He requires for us to use our intellect and problem solve. He gives us the the method in which to do things, but unfortunately Huruf, life is not black and white and must consider even the anomalies of this existence. However, God knows this and expects us to use our own intellect and sense of justice to create preventive measures against any type of injustice. Our courts must be extremely thorough and the procedures must be spelled out in a very detailed fashion with a methodology that is consistent.
We expect that our fellow brothers and sisters are God fearing with a conscience to never commit the most unthinkable of crimes. However, we were all created weak, and life teaches us to be well prepared.
-
Peace Goodlogic, Ayisha, and Amina,
Thank you for highlighting the verses for me, I've read them before but as you can see I am still questioning the matter further. Basically, we would be taking the eyewitness testimony as truth based on the fact that only the believing people would come forth with these allegations after having witnessed the act. However, we cannot know who is a believer and who is not as we cannot measure one's sincerity. In a secular court of law, allegations must be supported by hard evidence (especially when the allegation will lead to a very severe consequence). I do not know who is a believer and who is not at the end of day, only God knows this. We know that there are many people in this world who are not so God fearing let alone have a conscience to keep those verses in mind. As a result, should we not have requirements to ensure that a group of people do not make a choice to blatantly lie? In my mind, a group of people can be witness to anything if they make a choice to blatantly lie in order to somehow further their own agenda.
This may sound like a far fetched scenario, but anything is possible. This is why I think law books are so tedious and lengthy as they cover even the nitty gritty aspects.
Whenever I think of this issue, I look to this verse
2111 And they said "None shall enter Paradise except those who are Jewish or Nazarenes;" this is what they wish! Say
"Bring forth your proof if you are truthful."I think that if people are going to come together to make any kind of outrageous claim or allegation, then they must bring forth some kind of proof. I know this verse relates to a different topic, however, the part of people having to bring forth some kind of proof for their claims, it rings in my mind. Plus, it makes for a more full proof way of ensuring that we do not punish those who could possibly be innocent.
Peace 357,
Thanks for your input . However, I must disagree with you on this point as I see the number 4 very plainly. Do you have a translation perhaps with such changes that I could take a look at? I am just curious as to how it would appear more comprehensible.
Peace Released,
I see exactly where you are coming from. Reminds me of that movie (haven't read the book) The Stoning of Soraya M. One man was able to get 3 others to testify that his wife committed adultery, even though she never had. All because he had a lust over a young girl. In the end, one man regretted it and admitted that they made him lie, but it was too late.
I think in today's world, it is easier with all of our technology. Camera's, cell phones, electronic communication (which is kept forever somewhere on the internet) makes it easy to provide proof. But still, if one person doesn't have any of that, all we have is their word. Some people are very convincing liars.
To me, that is the reason for the fifth oath in ayahs 247 and 249. Ultimately, our reward or punishment is with our Lord and one is reminded of that (my understanding) when taking that final oath. The decision made on the day of judgement is an eternal one.
Peace,
Amina
-
Peace Amina )
Yes, very sad in case indeed. That poor girl. They pretty much murdered her. Of course, their methods of punishment were despicable ( not even Quranic) and the aim was to kill rather than merely punish without killing or maiming for life.
Totally, I think with modern day technology, it's very easy to bring forth this proof. Once perhaps a video in some digital form is presented to the courts, then we would have more than 4 witnesses to the crime plus the evidence to go with it. Then, we could make a clear conviction given that the video material clearly shows those who were accused of the crime. Otherwise, all we have is their word..this is correct. This is where the problem is in my opinion trusting human beings to give their word in order to decide on whether to down a severe punishment. I think the requirements for four witnesses is the first step. In cross-examining and interrogating these four people, we may be able to quickly identify the loop holes and inconsistencies in their testimonies. Thus, we will be able to throw the case out. However, in case we end up with very convincing liars with other motives (as in the case of Soraya and others), we must then be much more thorough as a way in which to prevent any injustice.
-
Peace 357,
Thanks for your input . However, I must disagree with you on this point as I see the number 4 very plainly. Do you have a translation perhaps with such changes that I could take a look at? I am just curious as to how it would appear more comprehensible.
Those who accuse married women of adultery, then fail to produce four witnesses, you shall whip them eighty lashes, and do not accept any testimony from them; they are wicked.
Should be something like;
Those who accuse married women of adultery, then fail to produce wighty/reasonable evidance, you shall give them similer/equivalent compensation for their accusations, and do not accept any testimony from them; they are wicked.
(without traditional grammer).
peace
-
Peace 357 )
Interesting theory. Okay, so you're not looking at 4 as a number here. So, then for the verse regarding polygyny or polygamy, how do you define 4 or four there? Can you give me another example where you use a broader definition in stead of the numerical value?
-
Those who accuse married women of adultery, then fail to produce four witnesses, you shall whip them eighty lashes, and do not accept any testimony from them; they are wicked.
Should be something like;
Those who accuse married women of adultery, then fail to produce wighty/reasonable evidance, you shall give them similer/equivalent compensation for their accusations, and do not accept any testimony from them; they are wicked.
(without traditional grammer).
peace
Peace 357,
bravo
-
Salaam,
Why bravo ?
Salaam,
Bender244]
Those who accuse married women of adultery, then fail to produce wighty/reasonable evidance, you shall give them similer/equivalent compensation for their accusations, and do not accept any testimony from them; they are wicked.(without traditional grammer).
Bender,
Because it makes good sense. Not saying that I take that translation over what has been given over the Qur'an, but I do like the way 357 put it there.
No one should just be able to walk up to a judge/police/imam and say "So and so has done this crime and I have 4 witnesses to prove it." Every last one of them should have "weighty and reasonable evidence" as to what they are claiming to.
I know people that can get 4 people to say "Yup, I saw it and I swear to God it is the truth" simply because they are afraid of losing favor with them. Disgusting.
Peace,
Amina
-
244]
Those who accuse married women of adultery, then fail to produce wighty/reasonable evidance, you shall give them similer/equivalent compensation for their accusations, and do not accept any testimony from them; they are wicked.(without traditional grammer).
Bender,
Because it makes good sense. Not saying that I take that translation over what has been given over the Qur'an, but I do like the way 357 put it there.
No one should just be able to walk up to a judge/police/imam and say "So and so has done this crime and I have 4 witnesses to prove it." Every last one of them should have "weighty and reasonable evidence" as to what they are claiming to.
I know people that can get 4 people to say "Yup, I saw it and I swear to God it is the truth" simply because they are afraid of losing favor with them. Disgusting.
Peace,
Amina
Salaam Amina,
I understood that you liked his translation and that it makes good sense to you but he gave a translation without any reference to other occurences in The Quran were the same word or it's derivative is used. In this way we can make whatever we desire out of the verses to fit our purposes.
I am sure you will not agree with this translation even if it makes good sense to me
244 Those who accuse married women of adultery, then fail to let Bender judge, you shall give them similer/equivalent compensation for their accusations, and do not accept any testimony from them; they are wicked.please take a look at this verse, maybe 357 can translate this verse
587 Do you not realize that God knows everything in the heavens and everything on the earth? No thalathatin people can meet secretly without Him being their rabi3uhum , nor khamsatin without Him being the sadisuhum , nor less than that, nor more, without Him being there with them wherever they may be. Then, on the Day of Resurrection, He will inform them of everything they had done. God is fully aware of all things.or this one
1822 they will say "thalathatun,rabiAAuhum is their dog." And they say "khamsatun,sadisuhum is their dog," guessing at what they do not know. And they say "sab3atun, wathaminuhum s their dog." Say "My Lord is fully aware of their number, none know them except for a few." So do not argue regarding them except with proof, and do not seek information regarding them from anyone.
Salaam,
Bender -
I really do not understand this insistence on the fact that witnesses can lie. Of course they can lie. But the courts, any court should be up to that. That is why four witnesses are required and not just two. Two witnesses should give enough food to a court to find out what they hide, four should be more than enough if the court fulfills its duty. If the court does not, then, most obviously it is not a question of the Qur'an not giving sufficient guarantees, but of the rotten court. And if in a country the courts are rotten, there is NO LAW, that is going to arrange that. I you ask for four thousand evidences, the same ones who bring four false witnesses, can bring forth four thoused cooked evidences. That is obvious.
As to require the witnesses to bring evidence, the court can do that itself. It can require evidence from wherever it wants to, it is one of its duties. If it brings evidence that one of the witnesses is liying. then it should throw him out and punish him. Or what do you think they do in criminal courts. And as per equivalent standars zina is a crime and the court that deals with it is acting as a criminal court. You do scrutinize testimony in a matter of assault or homicide or robbery, or not?
From where is it assumed that of all the cases of law breaking, only if the matter is zina witnesses are taken for granted and they are, BY LAW, truthful beyond doubt? Where does the Qur'an suggest such a thing. The mere fact that it provides for a penalty for false testimony is proof that the witnesses should be questionned and what they testify ascertained. Otherwise how would you find out that they give false testimony?
You speak as if the courts were mere transmission belts. It is not so. The witnesses may be mere transmission belts of what the observed, if they are fair, or of what they are ordered to say if they are perjurors, but the court is not. And the court must satisfy itself that the witnesses are not liying, that is what they are for To tell the truth, and the court must look to it, that what they say is the truth. Or is it being suggested that in order to act as a judge or juror a person must first become an imbecile?
Again, if the courts are rotten, there is nothing that the law can do. The people should straighten that up. It is their choice, they put up with rotten courts or they find the way to change that. There is nothing the Qur'an or any law can do about it, just as there is nothing the Qur'an can do about a father or a mother who doesn't love his or her children, or a husband who beats up the wife or a wife who undermines the husbad... People do wrong things, no matter what the Qur'an says and there is NO system under the sun that can function with rotten people. If we want gurantees, we should do something to bring them about. They are not going to come to us just because the Qur'an or whatever says great things, I am afraid.
Salaam
-
Salaam Amina,
I understood that you liked his translation and that it makes good sense to you but he gave a translation without any reference to other occurences in The Quran were the same word or it's derivative is used. In this way we can make whatever we desire out of the verses to fit our purposes.
I am sure you will not agree with this translation even if it makes good sense to me
244 Those who accuse married women of adultery, then fail to let Bender judge, you shall give them similer/equivalent compensation for their accusations, and do not accept any testimony from them; they are wicked.please take a look at this verse, maybe 357 can translate this verse
587 Do you not realize that God knows everything in the heavens and everything on the earth? No thalathatin people can meet secretly without Him being their rabi3uhum , nor khamsatin without Him being the sadisuhum , nor less than that, nor more, without Him being there with them wherever they may be. Then, on the Day of Resurrection, He will inform them of everything they had done. God is fully aware of all things.or this one
1822 they will say "thalathatun,rabiAAuhum is their dog." And they say "khamsatun,sadisuhum is their dog," guessing at what they do not know. And they say "sab3atun, wathaminuhum s their dog." Say "My Lord is fully aware of their number, none know them except for a few." So do not argue regarding them except with proof, and do not seek information regarding them from anyone.
Salaam,
BenderPlease note , i am not using Grammer or anything -
587
Seest thou not that Allah doth know (all) that is in the heavens and on earth? There is not a secret consultation between three, but He makes the fourth among them, - Nor between five but He makes the sixth,- nor between fewer nor more, but He is in their midst, wheresoever they be In the end will He tell them the truth of their conduct, on the Day of Judgment. For Allah has full knowledge of all things.i think it should be something like
587
Seest thou not that Allah doth know (all) that is in the heavens and on earth? There is not a an evil inclination projected between them, but He makes his weight among them, - Nor in their agreeing but He makes it dark/ashy, and not but a burden from that and not can they be more but he with them wherever they are In the end will He tell them the truth of their conduct, on the Day of Judgment. For Allah has full knowledge of all things.peace
-
Please note , i am not using Grammer or anything -
587
Seest thou not that Allah doth know (all) that is in the heavens and on earth? There is not a secret consultation between three, but He makes the fourth among them, - Nor between five but He makes the sixth,- nor between fewer nor more, but He is in their midst, wheresoever they be In the end will He tell them the truth of their conduct, on the Day of Judgment. For Allah has full knowledge of all things.i think it should be something like
587
Seest thou not that Allah doth know (all) that is in the heavens and on earth? There is not a an evil inclination projected between them, but He makes his weight among them, - Nor in their agreeing but He makes it dark/ashy, and not but a burden from that and not can they be more but he with them wherever they are In the end will He tell them the truth of their conduct, on the Day of Judgment. For Allah has full knowledge of all things.peace
Salaam 357,
I appreciate it that you don't use grammar or anything but on basis of what did you come to these definitions?
Salaam,
Bender