@ Crossroads

Alen

Peace All,
Most here know me, most don't. I'm a fairly quiet one, who prefers to reflect. I'd say I'm a very philosophical and open minded person. That I try to judge using my own experiences as some kind of barometer.
The past few months, I wouldn't say that I'm lacking faith in God, but rather lacking faith in the Quran.
I for one, don't believe that I will ever cease to believe in one God. But recently I have had doubts over the authenticity of the Quran. When I say authenticity, by that I mean, that in my mind, I believe that it is very likely that today's Quran isn't the original.
Why do I say this????
Well I'd count myself as a rational, logical person, and for rulings on law I'd like to see some justification, some reason behind those rulings.
For the life of me I cannot see the justification for 100 lashes for fornication. Two people who are in love and intend to get married, two people who've made an oath to each other, a commitment to each other, why are they punished?????
Forget even being married, what if they both agree on sleeping with each other??? It doesn't concern anyone but them, it's no one else's business.
I cannot see any valid reason for 100 lashes for fornication, not adultery (not saying that I agree with the 100 lashes either), but fornication.
And there are some other verses in the Quran which raise my suspicions.

Salam.

I've been there, brother, i've been asking myself why, why is The God Almighty testing me so much and so often especially these last few months.
Last few months, i've been tested more then my friends and i can tell because i see that apparently i pass the test because every next test i get, is the harder one, the toughest, so i assume that i pass those tests in the past.

Allah knows best.

Why should people be, for example, punished so harshly for sexual intercourse between 2 people, who mutually agree on sex outside marriage? Maybe because the human brain will suffer later, after the sex is over .... i know that if i commited fornication now, i know that my body might be satisfied but my soul would be one living Hiroshima.

Just rely on Allah Almighty, rely on God all the time and The God will guide you and protect you.
I can give you this patience. Just be patience and you'll see the results. Trust me. Be patient.

Be patient, brother.

Peace.

esimsek100

Peace All,

Peace Wakas,

Are you implying you see no rationale, benefit, reasoning etc in these laws? Or just not enough to justify them in your mind?

I see no rationale in those laws. Not just justifying in my mind, but just no rationale what-so-ever in the 100 lashes. Say some individual is punished with 100 lashes, then what next?? Either that person is not going to commit again, for fear of the lashes, or that person is going to be more careful when committing that same act.

Where is the moral justification behind the 100 lashes?? How does it teach the individual that it is wrong? What reason are the 100 lashes providing to say to the individual, this is why it's wrong??

I disagree with the latter statement here and I dont think it can be evidenced from 'the reading'.

Yep I think you're right, I'll have to check up on that.

I think bro Damon was referring to the transmission via sex aspect of AIDS.

Yeh I'm aware of that. But genetic diseases are also transferred via sex TO offspring.

Are you sure "rape" falls under this category?

Well where do rape laws fall?? It isn't covered in the Quran. This is probably the closest ruling there is to it.

Always a good sign. Tell me, does 1+1 always equal 2 or does it only equal 2 because one wants it to?

For me 1+1 ALWAYS equals 2. And this is what God is to me, no I'm not saying mathematics is my god. There is rationale, logic, and an unchanging premise behind it. 1+1 can never be anything but 2. The universe is built upon these simple laws, these simple laws give us a small glimpse at God.

Peace Elke,

So are you saying that you believe that the Quran isn't the word of God, but rather the inspiration of God?

Peace Magi,

Why do i have this oppinion? Because there are no wedding ritual to be found anywhere in the Quran. What we know as marriage, and what was intended as marriage must be as far apart as oil and water. Someone with crawing for power and money, turned both the whole principle and the idea itself into a freakshow.

God suffice as a witness.

My point exactly.

So in the eyes of the system, a marriage is merely a mutually accepted exchange of services between 2 people, and the system want say on the product thereof like in any other business. Its just business.

That's right. I personally believe that marriage was set up so that warring tribes could declare peace, or so that tribes could unite and be perceived as larger so that there safety was more guaranteed.

But two people who fall in love, can easily fall out of love. Which is why the Quran allows divorce. The problem, and maybe this is due to my mindset, is that I see such things as the 100 lashes, for fornication, still applying to this wrong concept that a female must be a virgin. If such mindset, to protect honour and family name (and god knows what else), is so important then there is no way the Quran would allow divorce.

Peace Alen,

Why should people be, for example, punished so harshly for sexual intercourse between 2 people, who mutually agree on sex outside marriage? Maybe because the human brain will suffer later, after the sex is over .... i know that if i commited fornication now, i know that my body might be satisfied but my soul would be one living Hiroshima.

See I have to disagree with you here. I'd say the reason your mind would feel like hiroshima is because society has brought you up to feel that way. Some examples-

*Hollywood movies convincing us to find romance, our one true love
*The institute of marriage being all around the world, everyone is expected to get married
*(If you live in a western country) Christianity being the major moral and ethic code, looking downcastly on sex outside of marriage

Being brought up to only be with your married partner
*A guy who sleeps around being called a stud (positive term), while a girl who sleeps around being given a negative term. This once again comes back to macho, insecurities of making sure you have a virgin for a wife.

Zehra

Quote from Wakas
Are you implying you see no rationale, benefit, reasoning etc in these laws? Or just not enough to justify them in your mind?

I see no rationale in those laws. Not just justifying in my mind, but just no rationale what-so-ever in the 100 lashes. Say some individual is punished with 100 lashes, then what next?? Either that person is not going to commit again, for fear of the lashes, or that person is going to be more careful when committing that same act.

Where is the moral justification behind the 100 lashes?? How does it teach the individual that it is wrong? What reason are the 100 lashes providing to say to the individual, this is why it's wrong??

This doesn't make any sense to me. Are you implying that a crime shouldn't be punished because it may not have the desired result? So, for example, a murderer shouldn't be jailed if imprisoning him is not going to reform him and he may commit another murder when he is free?

Also, sex outside marriage is discouraged in the quran. If two people are so in love and so committed to each other, then why aren't they willing to go the whole way and make their love legally binding (i.e. in marriage) rather than simply giving way to their emotions? Someone who's willing to postpone sex and marry his/her beloved before having sex is a lot nobler (and truly in love) in my book!

Wakas

peace esimsek,

It surprises me that you see no benefit, rationale etc for the rulings. Whilst I cannot say with certainty that these are the best rules (simply because I have not studied these aspects thoroughly nor have they been put into practice in a Quranic manner), I can still see some point to them.

If a couple is genuinely committed to each other then there is no reason to hide it. Hiding it, leaves both open to possible problems, some of whichinclude

pregnancy (which the father could deny after since no-one knew of the couple)
STDs (as sex out with marriage would result in an increase)
accusations of rape
reduction (to a certain degree) of morality for the society

Some possible benefits/rationale of the 100 lashes (please note, no specified severity of lashes is given)

public? naming and shaming
offender(s) become known
preventative to others
severity of punishment fits severity of crime (i.e. act requires 4 witnesses)

Well where do rape laws fall?? It isn't covered in the Quran. This is probably the closest ruling there is to it.

From the above, I am assuming therefore you have studied it and concluded rape does fall into this category. Personally, I have not studied it, hence asking you. My first/natural reaction to it was that it may not fall into this category.

For me 1+1 ALWAYS equals 2. And this is what God is to me, no I'm not saying mathematics is my god. There is rationale, logic, and an unchanging premise behind it. 1+1 can never be anything but 2.

Exactly. This is partly why I asked the question. 1+1=2 is independent of outside influence. Of course, that is only to one who understands the rule. Because you understand the rule (the maths, how it came about, what the result is, experienced it etc) it makes sense to you. Can you apply the same thought process to the 100 lashes rule? At the end of the day, the 100 lashes rule as per Quran is untested (to my knowledge) so none of us can say if it works or not. It remains an unknown. You cannot dismiss something on an unknown.

The universe is built upon these simple laws, these simple laws give us a small glimpse at God.

These laws are different to laws which govern an imperfect/human society.

I hope this helped. My intention was not to answer anything, but just to bring up some points for consideration.

unknownuser

I think it's important for us to look at the quran (no matter how highly we regard it) with as much skepticism as possible. We can't take it's word for it.

Phoenix,

Messengers went to their people and, said "Worship God, not for you from a God other than Him", how did they respond?

Instead of
listen, consider/ think, judge the message, take and practice according to the best message they understand

they (read again the stories of the messengers and their people)
judge outer appereance - social status, and, not doing the above verbs, but, they say

149 Has not the story reached you, (O people!), of those who (went) before you? - of the people of Noah, and 'Ad, and Thamud? - And of those who (came) after them? None knows them but Allah. To them came apostles with Clear (Signs); but they put their hands up to their mouths, and said "We do deny (the mission) on which ye have been sent, and we are really in suspicious (disquieting) doubt as to that to which ye invite us."

Don't judge in haste nor read it beginning with suspicious and scepticism. we should read with our heart and mind, listen to what it has to say, seek the best translation, and trust God.

As for me, i believe the whole of it. The one limited is our knowledge.

AspeRin

peace everyone
i know why you all meditating in this verse about the 100 slashes,you all put yourselfs as the victims,i have thought about it and it sucks to be whipped 100 times,but fornication its wrong,it brings many bad things to a community,the spreading of deceases,accidental pregnancy,and its addictive because its sex without responsability of having a wife, its easy,cheap too...
if this law was applied world wide,then it would be good,u cant take one of your friends that fornicated in an atheist country and give him the punishment yourself...but imagine kids hear that,and know it happens,there would be no fornication and aids which take lots of lives its over.
look at the western societies,when u fornicate your "friends" say its okay,u are cool.more like a reward...the oposite of what God commanded.
dont let your desires drag u into the typical humans.

the marriage show its bugging.i dont want one in my life.in some cultures it is indeed a freakshow.

peace handshake

esimsek100

Peace All,

It surprises me that you see no benefit, rationale etc for the rulings. Whilst I cannot say with certainty that these are the best rules (simply because I have not studied these aspects thoroughly nor have they been put into practice in a Quranic manner), I can still see some point to them.

Peace Wakas, the only rationale I see is determent by fear of punishment. While I can see this punishment (for any sin) as legit in a final judgement by God, I can't see the legitamacy of this punishment by humans against other humans. Other laws in the Quran have legitamacy and rationale behind them.

A thief, pays back his dues. Through this he/she learns hard work, and value of effects stolen. Through this the community learns that they may have an injust system (if he steals food for the simple of reason of feeding himself/herself).

A murderer is either killed, pays blood money or forgiven. Each punishment has a rationale behind it.

But what does the 100 lashes acheive?? It's a warning to others that if they fornicate they will receive 100 lashes.

Each punishment works on a cause-effect basis, whereas with the other punishments there is a linking between the cause and effect, but with the 100 lashes how on earth is the cause related to the effect? It simply isn't.

If indeed fornication is a morality issue, then surely the punishment should continue this premise, and serve to teach the individual and the community the positives and rehab of morality. I being a simple human, have the intellect capabilities to see the injustice of this punishment (for fornication), God in his infinite intelligence would see the problem before he even thought of it.

If a couple is genuinely committed to each other then there is no reason to hide it. Hiding it, leaves both open to possible problems, some of whichinclude

pregnancy (which the father could deny after since no-one knew of the couple)
STDs (as sex out with marriage would result in an increase)
accusations of rape
reduction (to a certain degree) of morality for the society

Problems arise in definining committed and couple. One-night stands are a commitment by two people. Two people who agree on an outcome. In a one-night stand case certainly pregnancy and accusations of rape may be a problem. But in this day and age pregnancy issues can be simply resolved through a DNA test. To a degree rape can also be resolved through evidence. So the only real issue I see here are false accusations of rape.

But this whole concept of a reduction of morality (as far as sex is involved) is logically false in my opinion. I can't exactly remember which species it was, but there are other animals who commit this act for the pure pleasure of it. We humans are also known to have sex for the pleasure of it. The reason we perceive that this act is immoral is because we are brought up with this topic as taboo. What is wrong with it??

It is a stress relief
It is a form of exercise
It allows the reproduction of the species
It is at every humans core natural instinct to reproduce

In todays current belief that sex with too many partners is wrong, where do the morality issues lie?

It provides jealousy (an issue of ego)
Well I can't really think of anything else that is negative with sex.

Can you apply the same thought process to the 100 lashes rule? At the end of the day, the 100 lashes rule as per Quran is untested (to my knowledge) so none of us can say if it works or not. It remains an unknown. You cannot dismiss something on an unknown.

But surely we can be theoretical about it. Many things we discuss here at this forum is theoretical. We only have the Quran and our god given reasoning to debate the many topics that this messageboard has been witness to.

A lot of people here, had issues with a thief having his hand chopped off, so the people here looked further, researched further and came to the conclusion that the verse in question stated that thief should pay back their dues, instead of having their arm chopped off. Which one of us has tested and seen the results of a theif paying back their dues? But we can theoretically see the outcome of such a situation, we can theoretically hope for the best. So I fail to see how we can't critic the unknown. Our reasoning and logic is still intact. You say yourself "one who understands the rule", well seeing other forms of physical punishment, I feel farily safe and certain to say that physical punishment is only a deterant through the fear of physical punishment. It doesn't necessarily teach anything. All it teaches is that certain act will resultant in certain physical punishment. But surely we are beyond this? Surely we, humans, who see ourselves so higher than the animal kingdom, simply because of our advanced intellects, who base so much on morals and ethics can see the complete immorality of this punishment?

Wakas

peace esimsek, all,

A thief, pays back his dues. Through this he/she learns hard work, and value of effects stolen. Through this the community learns that they may have an injust system (if he steals food for the simple of reason of feeding himself/herself).

And what does one do with a persistent thief?

If indeed fornication is a morality issue, then surely the punishment should continue this premise, and serve to teach the individual and the community the positives and rehab of morality. I being a simple human, have the intellect capabilities to see the injustice of this punishment (for fornication), God in his infinite intelligence would see the problem before he even thought of it.

Can you propose an alternative which satisfies your own criteria so we can see if it is indeed better?

One-night stands are a commitment by two people

Perhaps one could say an agreement, not a commitment as this is inhernetly a stronger word.

But in this day and age pregnancy issues can be simply resolved through a DNA test. To a degree rape can also be resolved through evidence.

In this day and age? As far as I'm aware The Quran's rules are built for universal application, irrespective of technology. Are you honestly suggesting it should be otherwise?

But this whole concept of a reduction of morality (as far as sex is involved) is logically false in my opinion.

I'm not entirely sure the word "logic" is valid here, but please refer to my points 1-3. Are you suggesting that my points 1-3 would not result in a reduction (to a certain degre) of morality for the society? Furthermore, you admitted yourself "sex for pleasure". Tell me, where exactly in The Quran does it recommend satisfying our desires and doing things for the purpose of pleasure?

Which one of us has tested and seen the results of a theif paying back their dues?

Community service? Fines? Anyways, lets say I'm not sure, but what I am sure about is that in terms of theoreticals we can relate more easily to this "punishment" than the 100 lashes one as the latter has simply not been tried anywhere as far as I'm aware. Thus considering the outcome for the former is easier than the latter.

So I fail to see how we can't critic the unknown.

I never said that. I said we cant dismiss something on an unknown. I try to be very careful with my words.

All it teaches is that certain act will resultant in certain physical punishment.

Have you forgotten about the naming & shaming component?

the complete immorality of this punishment?

Have you forgotten about no specific mention of severity of lashes?

esimsek100

Peace Wakas,

I cannot reply to your post as of yet, as I'm still contemplating. I haven't neglected you bro.

unknownuser

Peace all,

Have you forgotten about no specific mention of severity of lashes?

Very important point !! Please note again, the punishment is a certain number of lashes and not how severe, which stresses the public naming, shaming aspect as brilliantly pointed out by brother Wakas.

Another important point in my understanding is that the punishment of lashes is ONLY when witnessed by 4 or more people, again pointing to God wanting human sex to be private not public. Thus, under this definition, Zina would be ANY sex witnessed by 4 or more people, and a legally married couple having sex in front of 4 or more people would incur the same punishment.

Thus for me, Zina would be ANY sex witnessed by 4 or more people, and Fahisha would include fornication and adultery which has no "human" punishment (if not witnessed by 4 or more people) but is still haram/forbidden.

Another point is that as per al-qur'aan, marriage includes all three of the following

Witness
Marriage contract
Financial component "mahr"

ANY of these components missing would make it fornication/fahisha.

Peace

wildguest1956

Peace,

But this whole concept of a reduction of morality (as far as sex is involved) is logically false in my opinion. I can't exactly remember which species it was, but there are other animals who commit this act for the pure pleasure of it. We humans are also known to have sex for the pleasure of it. The reason we perceive that this act is immoral is because we are brought up with this topic as taboo. What is wrong with it??

You are asking a very good question.

To answer it, you first have to understand what would be natural sexual behaviors of human being, assuming no social regulation like ?fornication is a sin?.

The natural outcome of it would be the law of the jungle no monogamy anymore, infidelity, no more solidarity between people, society of consumption of wealth signals, violence, and so on?

The good news is that human beings are designed to fall in love. The bad news is that they aren't designed to stay there. According to evolutionary psychology, it is "natural" for both men and women at some times, under some circumstances ? to commit adultery or to sour on a mate, to suddenly find a spouse unattractive, irritating, wholly unreasonable. (It may even be natural to become irritating and wholly unreasonable, and thus hasten the departure of a mate you've soured on.) It is similarly natural to find some attractive colleague superior on all counts to the sorry wreck of a spouse you're saddled with. When we see a couple celebrate a golden anniversary, an apt reaction is the famous remark about a dog walking on two legs the point is not that the feat was done well but that it was done at all.

This logic goes far beyond such obviously Darwinian feelings as hunger and lust. According to evolutionary psychologists, our everyday, earlier shifting attitudes toward a mate or prospective mate trust, suspicion, rhapsody, revulsion, warmth, iciness, etc., are the handiwork of natural selection that remain with us today because in the past they led to behaviours that helped spread genes.

There are vanishingly few anthropological examples of systematic female polygamy, or polyandry - women monopolizing sexual access to more than one man at once. So, while both sexes are prone under the right circumstances to infidelity, men seem much more deeply inclined to actually acquire a second or third mate ? to keep a harem as it were.
They are also more inclined toward the casual fling.
Men are less finicky about sex partners ? prostitution ? sex with someone you don't know and don't care to know is a service sought overwhelmingly by males the world round. And almost all pornography that relies sheerly on

WHY DO WOMEN 'CHEAT'?
Even then the female capacity for promiscuity remained puzzling. For women, more sex doesn't mean more offspring. Shouldn't they focus on quality rather than quantity ? look for a robust, clever mate whose genes may bode well for the offspring's robustness and cleverness? There's ample evidence that women are drawn to such traits, but in our species genes are not all a male has to offer. Unlike our nearest ape relatives, we are a species of "high male parental investment." In every known hunter-gatherer culture, marriage is the norm ? not necessarily monogamous marriage, and not always lasting marriage, but marriage of some sort; and via this institution, fathers help provide for their children.
In our species, then, a female's genetic legacy is best amplified by a mate with two things good genes and much to invest. But what if she can't find one man who has both? One solution would be to trick a devoted, generous and perhaps wealthy but not especially brawny or brainy mate into raising the offspring of another male. The woman need not be aware of this strategy, but at some level, conscious or unconscious, deft timing is in order. One study found that women who cheat on mates tend to do so around ovulation, when they are most likely to get pregnant.

For that matter. cheating during the infertile part of the monthly cycle might have its own logic, as a way (unconsciously) to turn the paramour into a dupe; the woman extracts goods or services from him in exchange for his fruitless conquest. Of course the flowers he buys may not help her genes, but in the ancestral environment, less frivolous gifts ? notably food would have. Nisa, a woman in a !Kung San hunter-gatherer village, told an anthropologist that "when you have lovers, one brings you something and another brings you something else. One comes at night with meat, another with money, another with beads. Your husband also does things and gives them to you."
Multiple lovers have other uses too. The anthropologist Sarah Blaffer Hardy has theorized that women copulate with more than one man to leave several men under the impression that they might be the father of particular offspring. Then, presumably, they will treat the offspring kindly. Her theory was inspired by langur monkeys. Male langurs sometimes kill infants sired by others as a kind of sexual icebreaker, a prelude to pairing up with the (former) mother. What better way to return her to ovulation ? by putting an emphatic end to her breast-feeding ? and focus her energies on the offspring to come?

Meanwhile, male parental investment also makes the man's naturally polygynous bent inimical to his wife's reproductive interests. His quest for a new wife could lead him to withdraw, or at least dilute, investment in his first wife's children. This reallocation of resources may on balance help his genes ? but certainly not hers.

If Symons is right, the question of what makes a man feel the restlessness that leads to divorce can be rephrased what circumstances in the ancestral environment would permit the acquisition of a second wife? Answer possessing markedly more resources, power or social status than the average person.

Thus it is natural that a rising corporate star, upon getting a big promotion, should feel a strong attraction to women other than his wife. Testosterone ? which expands a male's sexual appetite, has been shown to rise in non-human primates following social triumphs, and there is evidence that it does so in human males too. Certainly the world is full of triumphant men who conform to this model. The most sucessful leader of all time ? Julius Caesar is an excellent example. It was said that the Roman Colosseums could have been filled with the wives with which he had sexual relations ? but there are lots of examples thousands of women ready and willing to sign on as contestants for Who wants to marry a Millionaire, the countless wealthy celebrity types (such as Johnny Carson and Donald Trump) who traded in aging wives for younger, more fertile models. The "multi-wived" tycoon J. Paul Getty once said, "A lasting relationship with a woman is only possible if you are a business failure."

Evolutionary psychologists have shown that the tendency of women to place even greater emphasis than men on a mate's financial prospects remains strong regardless of the income or expected income of the women in question.
The upshot of this is that economic inequality is monogamy's worst enemy. Affluent men are inclined to leave their aging wives, and young women ? including some wives of less affluent men are inclined to offer themselves as replacements.

Not only does male social inequality favor divorce. Divorce can also reinforce male social inequality; it is a tool of class exploitation. Consider U.S. TV talk-show host Johnny Carson. Like many high status males, he spent his career dominating the reproductive years of a series of women. Somewhere out there is a man who wanted a family and a pretty wife and, if it hadn't been for Carson, would have married one of these women. And if this man has managed to find another woman, she was similarly snatched from the clutches of some other man. And so on ? a domino effect a scarcity of fertile females trickles down the social scale.
As theoretical as this sounds, it cannot help happening. There are only about 25 years of fertility per woman. When some men dominate more than 25 years' worth, some man somewhere must do with less. And when, in addition to all the serial husbands, you count the men who live with a woman for five years before deciding not to marry her, and then do it again (perhaps finally at 35 marrying a 25-year-old), the net effect is not trivial. As some Darwinians have put it, serial monogamy is tantamount to polygyny. Like polygyny, it lets powerful men grab extra sexual resources, leaving less fortunate men without mates or at least without mates young enough to bear children. Thus rampant divorce not only ends the marriages of some men but also prevents the marriage of others. In 1960, when the divorce rate was around 25% in the U.S., the portion of the never married population age 40 or older was about the same for men and women. By 1990, with the divorce rate running at 50%, the portion for men was larger by 20% than for women. Since 1973 the gap between the rich and poor has increased by a ratio of 314 to 1 ? based on employment income. The middle class has decreased from 60% to 44% of the total population. The richest 10% earned $136,737 in 1996 ? about one generation earlier, back in 1973, the poorest 10% earned about 1/21 of what the richest ten percent earned.

The danger is that people will take the opposite tack react to this new understanding and insight by surrendering to "natural" impulses, as if what's "in our genes" were beyond reach of self-control. They may even conveniently assume that what is "natural" is always good. Earlier in the twentieth century natural selection was thought of almost as a benign deity, constantly "improving" our species ? moving us forward for the greater good. This mindset continues today in the unrivaled homage paid to economic competition and likewise through the philosophy of survival of the fittest being applied in business, industry and political systems. But evolutionary psychology rests on a quite different world view recognition that natural selection does not work toward overall social welfare, that much of human nature boils down to ruthless genetic self-interest and that people are naturally oblivious to their ruthlessness.

In this sense, yes, we are moral. We have at least the technical capacity to lead an examined life self-awareness, memory, foresight and judgment. Still, subjecting ourselves to moral scrutiny and adjusting our behavior accordingly is hardly a reflex, and not even fashionable in many quarters. We are potentially moral animals ? which is more than any other animal can say ? but we are not naturally moral animals. Perhaps the first step to being moral is to realize how thoroughly we aren't.

http//www.igs.net/~rogersk/mono.htm

A book everyone should read
http//www.amazon.com/Moral-Animal-Science-Evolutionary-Psychology/dp/0679763996

Peace