Zina is zina only if done in open
-
Dear All,
If you go back to roots of Zina in hebrew you will see that Zina is Zina only if done in open,as a punishment to a woman,that is why islam does not like it and has imposed provision of 4 witnesses.Anyway way Allah knows best this is only my finding.thanks -
Peace,
This is why I wonder if the passages exclusively speak of treason in terms of adultery and not about any circumstance with abuse of trust. I have not looked at this phenomenon before, but it would be interesting to do research on the Arabic passages.
And I have my suspicions about the word . I will look more on that at some point.
God bless you
-
One thing is worldly justice and worldly qulification, another thing is what things really are.
Four witnesses is what is required in order for the earthly justice to take any action. Even if the witnesses were faulse and men could not find out the punishemnt might be applied, that would not make it truer. Likewise, lack of witnesses, or the unwillingness of the witnesses to testify would not make less of a moral fault of the zina itself.
Indeed, God knows, and the personn who do it know it too. But there is no need for anybody else to know or do anything. It is one of those cases where what is important is that people realise the enormity of the coral crime and not so much the need for people to apply punishments to other peoples. There are many, most faults, deliberate faults that do not have a worldly justice punishment, like cheating, or despising, or humilliating others privately without witnesses. People might have doubts as to the moral category of zina, even have "understanding" for it. But it is not "innocent" environment. Of course, where zina is almost like everyday happenning and even a fashion, who would be there to witness what has become a common occurrence and taken for granted. No punishment can arrange that without falling in horrible hypocrisi.
Salaam
-
Peace noshirk,
I have joined your efforts at "re-deciphering" the "Qur'an" and I am also suspecting that the related verses are not speaking of adultery and I have a lot of suspicions.
My qualified guess without having come to the verses in question is that they talk about treason.
And I would like a copy of your translation of the "ants" of Solomon because I deem yours to be how it is supposed to be understood by the Author.
God bless you
-
Well adultery entails treason, and having intimate relations with somebody you feel entitled to disown whenever suits you, may be a minute later, may be when you have profitted enough from the "relationship" what is it but treason? Or rather using a person as you would use a thing. Remember, that according to Qur'an's depiction it is something between a woman and a man and four witnesses wanted.
Salaam
-
Peace huruf,
That is one reason why it rises suspicion. How often do you find witnesses for adultery and then 4 on top of that and how do you even recognize if it is adultery!? Where to draw the boundaries on adultery?
It is obviously something wrong with the passages' interpretation I think.
Like I have heard before I think it is treason and something really bad.
Adultery is treason, but not on that level. Your punishment is from God anyway.
I am going to research on those passages in a while, but right now it is a lot of stuff occupying my mind.
God bless you
-
As far as I am concerned, adultery or seduction on false pretences satisfies all my expectations for treason. I would settle for no more treason than that, really, because the next level would be what? be stabbed on the back or feed you some arsenic? Or is that about the same?
About the witnesses, precisely that is the point I wanted to make, that it is not so much about punishing anbody, but about pointing out, evidencing the gravity of the trespass. Adultery, sexual treason, either paperly married or not is a mockery of everything sacred and sincere.
We speak a lot about poligamy and how horrible it is because a person does not have two hearts, but then we are not shocked by sexual treason? That cannot be serious. If we do nove two hearts we do not have two... either. Whom are we kidding?
But of course, the Qur'an si right when it places slandering above adultery as an evil, because as it ill says will you eat your brother's flesh?
And those who slander chaste but careless men are cursed in this life and in the next awaits them a grievous penalty.
And obviously every woman is chaste until proven unchaste.
Salaam
-
Peace sister Huruf,
We should be ashamed of adultery, I did not intend to belittle it. It is on the list of decreed restrictions to Moses already a few thousand years ago and it is forbidden in the recitation (Qur'an).
But what I meant is the authorities' right to interfere in these domestic affairs and then punish the person guilty of adultery in a violent way. And the criterion to have 4 witnesses for adultery makes it hard to judge in my opinion and also where to draw the limits on when you commit adultery. This thing is what causes extremism in the so-called "islamic republics" where even contact with foreign women is restricted.
God bless you
-
Peace sister Huruf,
We should be ashamed of adultery, I did not intend to belittle it. It is on the list of decreed restrictions to Moses already a few thousand years ago and it is forbidden in the recitation (Qur'an).
But what I meant is the authorities' right to interfere in these domestic affairs and then punish the person guilty of adultery in a violent way. And the criterion to have 4 witnesses for adultery makes it hard to judge in my opinion and also where to draw the limits on when you commit adultery. This thing is what causes extremism in the so-called "islamic republics" where even contact with foreign women is restricted.
God bless you
That is why four witnesses are required. Anybody who commits that in front of four witnesses must be somebody nuts or exhibitionist. And most certainly nobody is obliged to testify. It is the one accusing who must get the four witnesses, not the state. The state has nothing to do. If you watch the wording, there is no imposition upon the community as such to initiate any prosecution. The person who does the accusation must bring four witnesses.
Whereas for instance, in 4.15 it is the community who is addressed and ordered to get four witnesses to the fahisha and proceed then to take the women and put them in the homes and upkeep them till they die or they find another source of income, in sura 24 no such burden is placed on anybody. There is no obligation to accuse. The proved guilty have a punishment assigned, but nobody is under the obligation to accuse or report. It is upon the one reporting to produce witnesses. Something hard to come by to say the least. And even if he or she is sure of the ilicit contact having taken place, that is no good, he or she must produce the witnesses, not request the authorities to find them or call the police. He must do that before coming up with such a thing, because if he does and does not bring the four witnesses, then he or her themselves are liable to 80 stripes. It is no joke.
Of course, in those places and times in which the jsutice administration is a joke, this can be misused and is misused, but so it happens with any law be it the sumum of goodness.
So, what you say that the authorities have the right to so and so, I do not see that that is what the Qur'an says. And it clearly shuns saying any such thing, because precisely the thrust of the whole speech en the first ayas of sura an-Nur is precisely the condemnation of gossip, slandering, circulatingtalk about indecency or indiscreetness and so on.
I think if you read again attentively that collection of ayas you will see. More than with adultery the concern is with circulating evil, eating your brother's flesh. It does not put any interest in punishing anybody, but on preventing slandering particularly of women, who happen to be the pick of choice for slandering.
That is why I think that the punishment fixed for zina is not there to be applied with enthusiasm, but quite the oppposite, to avoid it, but the fixing of the penalty serves as an orientation to the people of the gravity, the level of evil that those deeds entail. It is a pointer not a threat. Because what overwhelms is the preference for not bringing to the public such things. But leave to people to repent by themselves, or at list not to boast about them. So it is a private sin, but a very big sin. although may be not as evil as slandering. because slandering harms the whole and sets a mean a base social standard, whereas a private zina harms thsoe implied, very deeply but more or less restricted to them. That is what it seems to me, and that is why the result of any occusation from within a marriage if the accused one denies is settled by forceable divorce. and that is why it is not permitted to a believer to marry a zani or a mushrik. Interesting indeed, the equation between a zani and a mushrik. No a person cannot have two hearts nor two gods, his or her own covetousness and god, must choose.
So I am delighted when it is so much store put by cultural selfproclaimed muslims that a muslima cannot marry a non muslim, but many times, they marry and they know it well known and boasting zanis. Life at times is a joke.
Salaam
-
Peace,
I still think it would be hard to judge in a case of adultery. But I am not more knowing now and I will research on this topic when I have a time to study the Arabic myself.
God bless you
-
Dear all,
Quran mentions many old stories,history etc.and then tells us that what is right and what is evil.But Quran does not tell us all the stories and history,most of these stories were well known at the time of Great Revelations,so if you study Arab history of JAHILYA period and history of middle east , where most Prophets were posted,you will find, that when a man finds a woman,usually his wife or dependent,guilty of some serious crime,he will drag her to an open place,and do the zina in open ,telling bystanders,that she did such and such violations,so she is now being punished by me.Allah in quran wanted to stop this henious crime,that is why He came up with 4 witnesses,to stop it.Doing zina this way was not a common practice,but was done only by influentials.One of the Prophets wives,Ayesha,was blamed by some notorious people,of having received this punishment,Quran mentions 17 ayays about this incident and said,if so then why dont you bring around 4 witnesses,if you are correct?
This is all about to stop the ignorant periods practices,which are against Islamic ethics.May Allah help us all to increase our knowledge,try do it now.As said in 37 Raskhoon fil elm,get firm knowledge of all things.thanks. -
Salam bro
My qualified guess without having come to the verses in question is that they talk about treason.
zina, for me is defaming someone. Making false accusations. i wrote all what i have to say in this thread
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9605270.0And I would like a copy of your translation of the "ants" of Solomon because I deem yours to be how it is supposed to be understood by the Author.
confused I didn't understand what you want. I haven't a copy. I wrote only this http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604930.msg319427
in arabic, ant is naml and there is a meaning in dictionnaries also of lies and bad hearsays (namima).
Peace
-
Salam bro
zina, for me is defaming someone. Making false accusations. i wrote all what i have to say in this thread
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9605270.0
confused I didn't understand what you want. I haven't a copy. I wrote only this http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604930.msg319427in arabic, ant is naml and there is a meaning in dictionnaries also of lies and bad hearsays (namima).
Peace
I will read the ayas to see how zina = slander fits. At face value does not seem to me unconceivable, because if one thing is clear it is that the rage in that first part if sura nur is clearly directed to the slanderers, particularly the slanderers of women. I intend to look into it for sure. As I said, even with zina=adultery, it clear that the Qur'an is not after adulterers but after slanderers.
Salaam
-
-
Peace,
No worries, noshirk. I just thought if you had recorded your works in pdf or word file. It's okay. I will take a look in that thread. I find that you have the best translation available of what I have seen.
God bless you
-
I understand why when husband/wife has intimacy with other person who is not his/her spouse, that act should be condemned severely.
But what about unmarried love couples doing it? To those who hold the view that Qur'an commands to flog people who have sex outside of marriage even if the people are just unmarried love couples 100 times, can you answer this?
-
Peace,
The context is about (1) illicit sex (unacceptable by prevailing social standards considered wrong or unacceptable
by prevailing social customs or religious standards) and (2) a burden of proof that requires four "trustworthy" witnesses
which makes the illicit behavior so obvious that "everyone" knows and if not obvious, there is to be the avoidance
of suspicious (3) , slander.But what about unmarried love couples doing it? To those who hold the view that Qur'an commands to flog people who have sex outside of marriage even if the people are just unmarried love couples 100 times, can you answer this?
This depends on the parameters of accepted behavior by any given society be it religious or non religious.
For instance, in many non religious or social environments, sex between friends is acceptable. In a Southern Baptist
environment it is not.God bless
peace