Adultery
-
Peace
On pornography,
If we look at both the verses the 4 witnesses are mentioned both apply to WOMEN; One relating to ?bringing a charge against a Mohsinat? (243) and the other on ?women committing Fahisha? (415) .
Does this mean we can bring charges against men witout having to podue evidence?
Since the quraan is addressing both genders, the masculine in the addressee is not specific (accommodates both genders- generic masculine), and it entails that the feminine in the same verse related to this masculine is also generic (accommodates both genders), and should be understood as 'the opposite sex'; of course unless it is clear without doubt that the masculine or the feminie are specific (to their gender only).
It's good you brought this to attention. The verse is a proof that you cannot testify against your partner if you do not bring the four witnesses (kiss and tell) (and by logic you can't testify against someone else), which also shows that pregnancy is not proof of zena, because the pregnant woman cannot testify against her partner. Which, as a conclusion, proofs furthermore that punishment is not for the act, but for the act in public.
-
Peace bro Warner,
I agree that scientific studies cannot supersede God's laws but the question is Have you interpreted God's law properly ?
Firstly, It is a scientific fact that in corporal punishment by flogging, it is impossible to maintain a constant and equal force in each flogging, which will put a recipient at risk of severe injury and possible death and will not be fair for two people receiving flogging for the same crime because they will be getting different force on average.
Secondly, you still haven't answered that according to al-qur'aan how will you determine the upper limit for the force used ? The Mullah killing a zaani by using his full force in flogging will be justified by your theory of "let compassion not move you" referring to force of flogging; it will not be a misuse of the law then. He can justify it by saying that if he used less than full force that would be "letting compassion move him", and according to your theory that will be perfectly justified and will fall within the limits of the law.
Thirdly, the verse clearly says that "let not compassion move you IN THE SYSTEM PRESCRIBED BY GOD". The question is WHAT IS THE SYSTEM PRESCRIBED BY GOD ? The answer according to 242 is 100 LASHES WITH PUBLIC WITNESSING (with no mention of severity). So "let not compassion move you" will apply only to the number of lashes and the public witnessing and not the severity, because the severity is not mentioned. The God does not run out of words; He could have easily said "do not be too mild, nor too forceful", but He makes no mention of the severity of force. The emphasis, therefore, is clearly on the public shaming and humiliation aspect of flogging, which I have already shown that it can be an "azaab" and an effective worldly deterrent.
Fourthly, suppose you are witnessing a public flogging of a zaani; WON'T YOU BE WITNESSING THE AZAAB OF PUBLIC HUMILIATION OF THE ZAANI ?
-
Peace Samia
Samia Does this mean we can bring charges against men witout having to podue evience?
Yes, you can bring charges against a man without 4 witnesses and will not get lashed 80 times. You can not convict him but can bring charges. Whether the charges will bring about a conviction will be entirely on the evidence produced which is same for both men and women. Here the Quran protects the women above men from slander, possibly because they are more prone & vulnerable to slander and also will suffer greater consequences and social impact than men; convicted or not.
We are not dealing with the evidence and the conviction but only the accusation in 243.
You can not claim the addressing both genders here since the verse is very specific to muhsana_ti and not generally women. Do we have any support from the Quran when the feminine gender is mentioned where it applies to masculine as well and where something specific as Muhsanat. The verses in Chapter 4 and 24 dealing with similar issues are quite clear in identifying the genders separately.
Even 2412 dealing on the same issue is referring to a woman.
The following verses on similar or same subject are quite specific.
33 58
Yusuf Ali And those who annoy believing men and women undeservedly bear (on themselves) a calumny and a glaring sin.Transliteration Wal lazina yuzu_nal muminina wal mumina_ti bigairi maktasahu_ faqadihtamalu_ buhta_naw wa itsmam mubina_
24 23
Yusuf Ali Those who slander chaste women indiscreet but believing are cursed in this life and in the Hereafter for them is a grievous PenaltyTransliteration In nal lazina yarmu_nal muhsana_til ga_fila_til mumina_ti luinu_ fid dun ya_ wal a_hirah wa lahum aza_bun azim
Samia It's good you brought this to attention. The verse is a proof that you cannot testify against your partner if you do not bring the four witnesses (kiss and tell) (and by logic you can't testify against someone else), which also shows that pregnancy is not proof of zena, because the pregnant woman cannot testify against her partner. Which, as a conclusion, proofs furthermore that punishment is not for the act, but for the act in public.
Besides other reasons someone should be completely out of their mind to testify against their partner because they will automatically be party to the act and if one person is proven guilty the other will be implicated thus punished. I would say it is virtual suicide.
Samia (and by logic you can't testify against someone else)
I can not understand you here.
Samia which also shows that pregnancy is not proof of zena, because the pregnant woman cannot testify against her partner.
Pregnancy is not a proof of zina or even of sex. Artificial insemination, surrogate mothers, miracle births and what not? If the pregnant woman testifies against the partner in fact she is testifying against her own self , which I think should be in a state of complete insanity.
Samia Which, as a conclusion, proofs furthermore that punishment is not for the act, but for the act in public
I do not see how anything you mentioned above proves pornography or public sex infact the verses clearly negates the pornography theory
-
Salaam wrner
Do we have any support from the Quran when the feminine gender is mentioned where it applies to masculine as well and where something specific as Muhsanat.
Yes.
-
Verse 314 zuyiina lin-naasi 7ubbush-shahawaati minan-nisaa'i walbaneen
Beautiful for people is the love of things they covet women, children...
(while I was reading the translation by King Fahad Complex, I found that it reads beautiful for "MEN"! So, naas people, suddenly became men. This is because the traditional translation could not accommodate that nisaa' could also contain rijaal, or else it does not mean women.). -
443 ...aw laamastumun-nisaa' And if you are ill or .....or have been in contact with women...
-
55 "This one has mu7sanaat and mu'minaat"
Unless, of course, you think that these verses do not address women.
33 58
Yusuf Ali And those who annoy believing men and women undeservedly bear (on themselves) a calumny and a glaring sin.I presume that "annoy undeservedly" would mean bring charges against them without evidence. So, it is not as you said we can bring charges against men without evidence. You have the rule in this verse, so whenever you find "accusation withoud evidence", remember that it concerns both men and women. If the quraan repeats every verse twice to accommodate both genders, it will be too boring and too big to read. And after all, it is a reading for people who think, reflect and contemplate
-
-
Peace Tanveer
Tanveer Firstly, It is a scientific fact that in corporal punishment by flogging, it is impossible to maintain a constant and equal force in each flogging, which will put a recipient at risk of severe injury and possible death and will not be fair for two people receiving flogging for the same crime because they will be getting different force on average.
Unless we used mechanized flogging with sensors and computers.
The victim of someone?s wrong doing and in case of infidelity the suffering of the innocent party is not same too. It might be different from person to person. Some may shrug it off. Some may lose their jobs, minds and even their lives due to the devastation.
How do you select a cow when God asks you to sacrifice one?
Tanveer Secondly, you still haven't answered that according to al-qur'aan how will you determine the upper limit for the force used ? The Mullah killing a zaani by using his full force in flogging will be justified by your theory of "let compassion not move you" referring to force of flogging; it will not be a misuse of the law then. He can justify it by saying that if he used less than full force that would be "letting compassion move him", and according to your theory that will be perfectly justified and will fall within the limits of the law.
I said the number is important (plese asee last post), but the command is to LASH not back massage.
Does the Quraan say Mullah should do the flogging ?
No. The Quraan expects the punishment to be carried out by people who ?believe in Allah and the last day?. Such a person/people will be compassionate to another human being and therefore he can not have hatred towards the punished. Caning is for inflicting pain and not for killing, maiming or cutting people up.
For the sake of argument even in your public humiliation thesis there is pain involved for the punished due to the public humiliation and it will not be same for each and every person. For some it may not matter at all and for some it will cause more psychological damage than physical. Do we analyze that as well? How about the length, breadth and the make of the cane; wood or something else. The witnesses; how many, male or female, young or old , close watching or at a distance ? Which part of the body to cane? Palm or back or anywhere else. Morning or evening. Indoors or outdoors ?
Have you decided what kind of cow its going to be?
Tanveer Thirdly, the verse clearly says that "let not compassion move you IN THE SYSTEM PRESCRIBED BY GOD". The question is WHAT IS THE SYSTEM PRESCRIBED BY GOD ? The answer according to 242 is 100 LASHES WITH PUBLIC WITNESSING (with no mention of severity). So "let not compassion move you" will apply only to the number of lashes and the public witnessing and not the severity, because the severity is not mentioned. The God does not run out of words; He could have easily said "do not be too mild, nor too forceful", but He makes no mention of the severity of force. The emphasis, therefore, is clearly on the public shaming and humiliation aspect of flogging, which I have already shown that it can be an "azaab" and an effective worldly deterrent.
How come you see the ?100? and the ?green? and not see the TREES in ?100 trees which are green?.
The subject matter is LASHES.
The punishment is lashes. The number being 100 can not be reduced. But its 100 LASHES. Lashing means inflicting pain and not killing or maiming or cutting people up for which there are other words in the quraan. We can not exceed the limit if we ?believe in Allah and the last day?
Tanveer ?100 LASHES WITH PUBLIC WITNESSING?
There is no such sentence, read the verse again.
242 Yusuf Ali 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
Can you see it says ?flog each 100 times?.
The witnessing comes, much later in the verse. It is not in the same sentence as you like to project and the context doesnt provide that either.
The witnessing may be is to serve as a warning to others who sees and hears the punishment.
They were told to witness the azaab and not be the azaab it self. When you are invited to come and see the game that does not mean you are asked to come and play. You are just going to be part of the audience.
The verse says the believers should witness "THEIR AZAAB? meaning the azaab of the 2 people punished. It doesn?t say the 2 people being punished should see the believers which will be public humiliation. There is no public humiliation mentioned in the verse. Even if the believers are behind a one way glass and witnesses the proceedings still the commands in the verse are not broken.
-
-
Peace bro Warner,
I can see that you have consistently avoided answering one of the questions that I have been asking you.
According to your theory, "let not compassion move you" means the punishment is not mild. According to this conjecture then, WHAT IS THE UPPER LIMIT OF FORCE OF FLOGGING ?
The person legally appointed to do the flogging, flogging with full force and killing the zaani in the process, claiming that he will not let compassion move him, FALLS WITHIN YOUR CONJECTURAL INTERPRETATION OF THE VERSE.
No. The Quraan expects the punishment to be carried out by people who ?believe in Allah and the last day?. Such a person/people will be compassionate to another human being and therefore he can not have hatred towards the punished. Caning is for inflicting pain and not for killing, maiming or cutting people up.
The part in bold of your quote CLEARLY CONTRADICTS the "do not let compassion move you" part of 242, IF THAT PHRASE IS CONJECTURALLY INTERPRETED TO BE REFERRING TO FORCE OF LASHING.
Someone being lashed with mild force also falls within the limits of "lash them", and because severity is not mentioned, "let compassion not move you" cannot be referring to force of lashes, as you yourself admitted in your above quote where you said "Such a person/people will be compassionate to another human being" referring to the force of lashing.
You contradict yourself when on one hand you say that "let not compassion move you" means not mild, and then on the other hand you say that such a person will be compassionate to another human being and not lash him with full force. Your conjecture of "let compassion not move you" referring to not mild force LEAVES THE DOOR WIDE OPEN FOR THE UPPER LIMIT OF THE FORCE.
The punishment is lashes. The number being 100 can not be reduced. But its 100 LASHES. Lashing means inflicting pain and not killing or maiming or cutting people up for which there are other words in the quraan. We can not exceed the limit if we ?believe in Allah and the last day?
Again, what is the upper limit of force of lashing per al-qur'aan ? Again, the Mullah flogging a zaani with full force thereby killing him in the process or cutting him up or damaging his spine and kidneys, because he does not want compassion to move him, WILL FALL WITHIN THE LIMITS ACCORDING TO YOUR CONJECTURAL INTERPRETATION.
Someone being lashed with mild force also falls within the limits of "lash them", and because severity is not mentioned, "let compassion not move you" cannot be referring to force of lashes. The words used are "faijlidoo" and "jaldatin" which according to Lane's Lexicon mean "beating the skin", and spanking someone with even bare hands falls within that definition. A better translation would be "beat their skin with 100 skin beatings".
"Lash them with 100 lashes" does not mention the severity; did The God forget to mention severity ? Therefore "let compassion not move you" cannot refer to severity, but only to the number of lashes.
The verse says the believers should witness "THEIR AZAAB? meaning the azaab of the 2 people punished. It doesn?t say the 2 people being punished should see the believers which will be public humiliation. There is no public humiliation mentioned in the verse. Even if the believers are behind a one way glass and witnesses the proceedings still the commands in the verse are not broken.
Witnessing can only be true witnessing if the view is clearly unobstructed, and the witnesses are in the vicinity of the flogging. Thus the witnessing is clearly public humiliation. Otherwise with latest technology, people can be made to think they are standing behind a one way mirror, whereas they could actually be watching something on a tv screen with special effects changing what is actually going on, and thus not be a true witnessing.
Because it is God's law that the flogging has to be publicly witnessed, even if the person being flogged cannot see the public, that person will still know that the flogging is being witnessed by others because it is God's law, and thus it will be public humiliation.
-
Peace AM,
- Since when is Zina = Public Sex and who defined this ?
It is defined in 244. According to 244, even if intercourse occured but you only have three witnesses, the 3 witnesses would be LIARS. This can only be true if the requirement of 4 witnesses is built into the definition of "zina". Given the prohibition against spying and the sanctity of the home in the great reading, this means that "zina" is public sex/pornography.
- What constitute a Public sex ? ( Does a Spouse catching his/her partner having sex with another constitute a Public Sex ? ) .
This is a special case addressed by 246-9. The spouse's testimony is equivalent to 4 testimonies, but the accused partner's testimony is equivalent to 5. So the spouse must testify and the partner must admit to the act for it to be classified as "zina".
- Why do you categorize Adultery/ Infidelity as a Legal Issue ? ( It may be a legal Issue where you are , but not in other Countries . In fact , in many countries Adultery is Strictly a Moral issue only devoid of Legal Implications . Adultery has not been a Ground for Divorce in many Jurisdictions for ages now and anyone can File for divorce On a No fault Basis ) .
I said adultery/infidelity is a moral issue. Divorce is a legal issue. So when a couple decided to get a divorce becaus one is cheating, this becomes a legal issue. One can file a divorce with or without cause but there are laws that guide the process for divorce (waiting periods, etc.).
- why did you believe that only the Father is responsible for a child born out of a liason and not the Mother ? . ( The Child Support Acts hold both the Father and the Mother of the child responsible for the child's maintenance , although the Responsibilty lies largely with the Non-Custodial Parent ) .
Both the father and the mother are responsibile for the child. The great reading gives the preference for custody in the early years of a child's live to the mother and maintains that the father must give the mother a wage for taking care of the child.
5)Since when does a Pornography recorded by a Couple , married or not for their own Private Viewing , is a Legal Issue ?
This is not pornography. It would become pornography/"zina" if the married couple deliberately distribute for profit or not for profit the tape for public viewing. Then it is "zina" and if four people see the tape and bear witness agains the married couple, they would be punished.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace JK,
JK- Oh common what if the intention was to stimulate sex between married couples and only those are watching it? Its a moral issue.
No it is not. Everyone, including married couples should not approach pronography. It may seem harmless initially, but the god clearly says that "zina"/pornography is a "fahisha"/gross sin and a "saa sabila"/bad path. This is because the god knows where that path will lead to. If the married couple do not avoid pronography, they will become more focused on the wrong things and in the long term this will negatively affect the love between them.
What I am saying is not amazing or special. ALL SOCIETIES, including liberal ones have laws against pornography so that people (including children) who don't want to see such things do not.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Ayman
If we take 244 to be the defining verse for Zina can we still support the theory of ?Liars?
since the word occurs only in 2413 unless you connect the 2 verses. 2411 and 12 both build up the matter mentioned as a ?lie? from the beginning.Why do you think only women are mentioned in both verses ( in 244 specifically MoHsanati) and not men.
Do you find a connection between verses 242 and 244 with verse 425 in which half the punishment of MohSanat is recommended for married Ma Malakat Aymanakum committing Fahisha
-
Dear Warner
Case of 24-4, mentioning only women for false accusation charges, is an important understanding . The reasons, which you mentioned in an earlier post, could be valid. yes
Appreciate your keen observation , and judgment, bravo keep up the good work.
peace
siki
-
Dear Warner
Case of 24-4, mentioning only women for false accusation charges, is an important understanding . The reasons, which you mentioned in an earlier post, could be valid. yes
Appreciate your keen observation , and judgment, bravo keep up the good work.
peace
siki
Salaam siki
I have comented on this very understanding earlier on this thread. Quraan has its own sociolinguistics regarding the generic female. Not every mention of "nisaa", "mu7sanaat" or "mu'minaat" makes these words specific to the feminine gender. The very fact that the quraan addresses both genders calls for that, and there is proof of the generic feminine in the quraan. -
Dear Brother Tanveer
The words Mohsinnat , and NIssa are used for women in verses 24-4 and 4-15 respectively, if you study/evaluate the subject verses carefully , you would find that, MY understanding of Mohsinnat (which we debated in Mohsinnat thread) again fitting in perfectly.
peace
siki
-
Peace Brother Siki
Your post above is not very clear for me.
Your theory on Mohsanat can not be correct because of,
-
You did not take in to account the Wa/And at the start of 424 (which should link 424 with 423)
-
"What beyond/besides that" is referring not to Ma Malakat Aymanakum but to all the categories mentioned in 422 to 424.
-
In 424,
Thus hath Allah ordained (prohibitions) against you except for these all others are lawful
Has been neglected in your translation.
Please re check the verses with the above info.
-
-
Peace "ayman",
Peace JK,
No it is not. Everyone, including married couples should not approach pronography. It may seem harmless initially, but the god clearly says that "zina"/pornography is a "fahisha"/gross sin and a "saa sabila"/bad path. This is because the god knows where that path will lead to. If the married couple do not avoid pronography, they will become more focused on the wrong things and in the long term this will negatively affect the love between them.
What I am saying is not amazing or special. ALL SOCIETIES, including liberal ones have laws against pornography so that people (including children) who don't want to see such things do not.
Peace,
Ayman
JK- So basically according to you even if a married person secretly has sex with another one, tht is not adultery and shldnt be punished, whilst a mere display of sex on the tv by a married couple/one which has a legal contract assuming responsibility should be punished as to be whipped by 100 lashes??!! Does tht make any sense at all? Moreover the Quran also states tht GOD doesnt want SECRET LOVERS. THTS WHT CORRUPTS SOCIETIES "SECRET LOVERS". If you wanna have sex let the community know, not how and where, but tht ur gonna do it n ur assuming responsibility. Man this really lacked any rationaility whtsoever IMHO. GOD Bless!
-
Peace JK,
JK- So basically according to you even if a married person secretly has sex with another one, tht is not adultery and shldnt be punished, whilst a mere display of sex on the tv by a married couple/one which has a legal contract assuming responsibility should be punished as to be whipped by 100 lashes??!! Does tht make any sense at all? Moreover the Quran also states tht GOD doesnt want SECRET LOVERS. THTS WHT CORRUPTS SOCIETIES "SECRET LOVERS". If you wanna have sex let the community know, not how and where, but tht ur gonna do it n ur assuming responsibility. Man this really lacked any rationaility whtsoever IMHO. GOD Bless!
I don't get what you are saying. Are you saying that it is OK for a married couple to have sex on TV and a million people watches them? Are you saying that it is OK for a married couple to go on the street and have sex in front of everyone? I am saying that it is not OK because it is pornography/"zena".
If you are talking about a married couple taping themselves and not sharing the tape, then you didn't read my response to AM above carefully. Here is what I said about this situation
This is not pornography. It would become pornography/"zina" if the married couple deliberately distribute for profit or not for profit the tape for public viewing.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace "ayman",
Apparently you didnt get it so lemme rephrase down below ur comments.Peace JK,
I don't get what you are saying. Are you saying that it is OK for a married couple to have sex on TV and a million people watches them? Are you saying that it is OK for a married couple to go on the street and have sex in front of everyone? I am saying that it is not OK because it is pornography/"zena".
JK- 1st of all NO im not saying tht its ok for a married couple to show theselves having sex to the world BUT tht is a moral issue and if they do so we cant just lash them but perhaps give them a small fine which could gradually increase if repeated and the issue is settled. NOW on to wht i meant. I wanted to ask you dear ayman "Do you imply that married couples making a display of sex in public is a worse crime than a couple who doesnt have a legal contract and yet indulge in sex secretly? Do you consider the 1st one as zina whilst the 2nd one is not?" Simple. GOD Bless!