Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Users
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Free Minds Forum Icon
  1. Home
  2. Family Issues
  3. Marriage & Divorce
  4. Got som important Questions about Adultery?

Got som important Questions about Adultery?

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Marriage & Divorce
92 Posts 13 Posters 3.1k Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • U Offline
    U Offline
    unknownuser
    wrote on last edited by
    #21

    Salaam all

    How do you define a woman who is not chaste? Examples will be appreciated.

    Engaging in zina rotfl P

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • S Offline
      S Offline
      SwedenMajidah
      wrote on last edited by
      #22

      Engaging in zina rotfl P

      Yeah exactly but she can repent and become chaste. God is merciful!!!!

      Maria

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • S Offline
        S Offline
        Samia
        wrote on last edited by
        #23

        Engaging in zina rotfl P

        That's all? Then ALL women are chaste until seen by 4 people at least...

        Yeah exactly but she can repent and become chaste. God is merciful!!!!

        ...then she returns to the pool. Not really a classification that calls for a special way of dealing with a category of women. I mean in the verse 244 it suffies to say "Those who accuse women and do not bring 4 witnesses...", because even the zaania is included in these women UNTIL 4 witnesses are presented.

        In short, "mu7sanaat" meaning "chaste" does not hold water in any verse.

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • S Offline
          S Offline
          siki
          wrote on last edited by
          #24

          That's all? Then ALL women are chaste until seen by 4 people at least...

          ...then she returns to the pool. Not really a classification that calls for a special way of dealing with a category of women. I mean in the verse 244 it suffies to say "Those who accuse women and do not bring 4 witnesses...", because even the zaania is included in these women UNTIL 4 witnesses are presented.

          In short, "mu7sanaat" meaning "chaste" does not hold water in any verse.

          My dear sister samia ! May i have your permission to modify your above statement in red, and change it to ,, "A sweeping statement does not hold any water "

          Do i dare ask your Majesty to kindly enlighten ! me/us with your version of Mohsinnats, in 24-4 ? eat eat

          siki

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • B Offline
            B Offline
            Bigmo
            wrote on last edited by
            #25

            How many people committing adultery have 4 witnesses to it?!?!

            Maybe its not about adultery but about slander. It could have been made to prevent slander and gossip and stop people who have seen the act to report the act. Since they have to bring 3 other witnesses or else they get smacked.

            But what about pregnancy outside marriage?

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • S Offline
              S Offline
              Samia
              wrote on last edited by
              #26

              My dear sister samia ! May i have your permission to modify your above statement in red, and change it to ,, "A sweeping statement does not hold any water "

              Do i dare ask your Majesty to kindly enlighten ! me/us with your version of Mohsinnats, in 24-4 ? eat eat

              siki

              We start by showing what a word is not.. and we leave the humble subjects to come up with a better understanding.

              And who dared make the statement "sweeping" if we did not permit that? Throw them to the lions .. >D

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • S Offline
                S Offline
                siki
                wrote on last edited by
                #27

                We start by showing what a word is not.. and we leave the humble subjects to come up with a better understanding.

                And who dared make the statement "sweeping" if we did not permit that? Throw them to the lions .. >

                Your wish is my command, Madam! hail

                And the ones who accuse the Free women of adultery ,and then fail to produce 4 witnesses,,,, > ignore

                And the one who accuse Married women of adultery, and then fail to produce 4 witness,,,

                And the ones who accuse the protected women of adultery ,and then fail to produce 4 witnesses,,,, o yuck

                And the ones who accuse the self protected women of adultery ,and then fail to produce 4 witnesses,,,, -[ ???

                And the ones who accuse the engaged protected women of adultry ,and then fail to produce 4 witnesses,,,, P confused

                And the ones who accuse the honorable women of adultry ,and then fail to produce 4 witnesses,,,, '( brickwall

                And the ones who accuse the independent women of adultry ,and then fail to produce 4 witnesses,,,, hypno elektro

                voodoo voodoo voodoo voodoo voodoo voodoo voodoo voodoo voodoo

                Your Majestey ! pr Now, if you promise to spare my life, & by retracting your last command of "throwing me to the lions", i would humbly re-submit my original plea, for your kind reconsideration,once again please, hail please ?

                And the ones who accuse the chaste women of adultery ,and then fail to produce 4 witnesses,,,,

                bravo bravo bravo bravo bravo bravo bravo bravo bravo bravo

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • S Offline
                  S Offline
                  Samia
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #28

                  Your wish is my command, Madam! hail

                  And the ones who accuse the Free women of adultery ,and then fail to produce 4 witnesses,,,, >( ignore

                  And the one who accuse Married women of adultery, and then fail to produce 4 witness,,, (

                  And the ones who accuse the protected women of adultery ,and then fail to produce 4 witnesses,,,, yuck

                  And the ones who accuse the self protected women of adultery ,and then fail to produce 4 witnesses,,,, -[ ???

                  And the ones who accuse the engaged protected women of adultry ,and then fail to produce 4 witnesses,,,, confused

                  And the ones who accuse the honorable women of adultry ,and then fail to produce 4 witnesses,,,, '( brickwall

                  And the ones who accuse the independent women of adultry ,and then fail to produce 4 witnesses,,,, hypno elektro

                  voodoo voodoo voodoo voodoo voodoo voodoo voodoo voodoo voodoo

                  Your Majestey ! pr Now, if you promise to spare my life, & by retracting your last command of "throwing me to the lions", i would humbly re-submit my original plea, for your kind reconsideration,once again please, hail please ?

                  And the ones who accuse the chaste women of adultery ,and then fail to produce 4 witnesses,,,,

                  bravo bravo bravo bravo bravo bravo bravo bravo bravo bravo

                  Don't clap yet...We did not give permission or approval.

                  Good start.

                  Now think (it feels good to give orders to think ;D) of who would not be affected / naturally protected if accused of fornication.. ;D..
                  those will be the opposite of mu7sanaat

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • U Offline
                    U Offline
                    unknownuser
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #29

                    Maybe its not about adultery but about slander. It could have been made to prevent slander and gossip and stop people who have seen the act to report the act. Since they have to bring 3 other witnesses or else they get smacked.

                    But what about pregnancy outside marriage?

                    Maybe it's both? A lot of these punishments have more than one single effect. And I think pregnancy outside of marriage would be included, why not?. All you would need is 4 doctors as witnesses, with DNA evidence.

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • U Offline
                      U Offline
                      unknownuser
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #30

                      Don't clap yet...We did not give permission or approval.

                      Good start.

                      Now think (it feels good to give orders to think ;D) of who would not be affected / naturally protected if accused of fornication.. ;D..
                      those will be the opposite of mu7sanaat

                      What's your understanding of it?

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • J Offline
                        J Offline
                        Jack
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #31

                        And I think pregnancy outside of marriage would be included, why not?. All you would need is 4 doctors as witnesses, with DNA evidence.

                        excellent point

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • S Offline
                          S Offline
                          Samia
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #32

                          Maybe it's both? P A lot of these punishments have more than one single effect. And I think pregnancy outside of marriage would be included, why not?. All you would need is 4 doctors as witnesses, with DNA evidence.

                          I don't think pregnancy is to be considered as evidence, although it is evidence against fornication (do we have a punishment for that?) but not evidence for public sex. Moreover, public sex requires 4 witnesses, unlike any other matter that requires two or even one witness. Any hard evidence is counted at most as two witnesses (as in other cases requiring witnesses). It can't be accepyed in lieu of 4 witnesses. (this is my own fatwa jedi)

                          The anology is drawn with pregnancy withing the marriage but from other than the husband. If it took place after at least six months of marriage, it belongs to the hsband and no tests are admitted. This is for the protection of the child, not the mother.

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • S Offline
                            S Offline
                            siki
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #33

                            Don't clap yet...We did not give permission or approval.

                            Good start.

                            Now think (it feels good to give orders to think ;D) of who would not be affected / naturally protected if accused of fornication.. ;D..
                            those will be the opposite of mu7sanaat

                            Your Majesty! pr

                            This being Ayman's invention, I had a plan to engage eat him on this, but you got yourself into it , yes ok, Never mind. jedi

                            To start with,

                            hail could you try and list your protected category for me? and how are they protected? ignore

                            Additionally,

                            which is the other unprotected category, and why is it OK to accuse them ? ???

                            siki

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • S Offline
                              S Offline
                              Samia
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #34

                              We never said it is OK to attack someone. We said they are not affected and they are naturally protected, naturally being "by nature" not "of course".

                              I know you know whom I mean, because I mentioned this twice before, one of them being on your very thread of mohsanaat (or was it MMA?).

                              Well, think of the

                              1. impotent, primarily or secondary to an ailment; hermaphrodites and other congenital anomaly (such as blocked vagina), amputee (by accident or by pathology) (the can't have sex);

                              2. bereaved psychologically (who had a horrible experience in their early years such as molested or raped children) or emotionally (death of partner/love); homosexual or people who are not attracted to the opposite sex; frigid (the don't want to have sex).

                              These categories represent at least 30% of any population. Those are the non mu7San.

                              I should also add to the second category nuns and monks.

                              1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • S Offline
                                S Offline
                                siki
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #35

                                We never said it is OK to attack someone. We said they are not affected and they are naturally protected, naturally being "by nature" not "of course".

                                I know you know whom I mean, because I mentioned this twice before, one of them being on your very thread of mohsanaat (or was it MMA?).

                                Well, think of the

                                1. impotent, primarily or secondary to an ailment; hermaphrodites and other congenital anomaly (such as blocked vagina), amputee (by accident or by pathology) (the can't have sex);

                                2. bereaved psychologically (who had a horrible experience in their early years such as molested or raped children) or emotionally (death of partner/love); homosexual or people who are not attracted to the opposite sex; frigid (the don't want to have sex).

                                These categories represent at least 30% of any population. Those are the non mu7San.

                                I should also add to the second category nuns and monks.

                                Your Majesty! pr

                                I am so '( ashamed while declaring , "I did not nope make any sense hmm of your posts "Then" , and "Even now";, ??? I would humbly hail request to kindly elaborate/re-word your opinion, so that the Royal command is under stood in its true essence. And if some "Darbari" attending the royal court has understood Her Majesty's sermon, he may kindly relay the message in commoners language handshake

                                siki

                                1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • S Offline
                                  S Offline
                                  Samia
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #36

                                  You are not using your grey substance as we commanded you, subject!

                                  Anybody outside this category is muhsan, that's immune from the (can't , does not want to have sex) syndrom.

                                  And what's "Darbari", if We may ask?

                                  1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • S Offline
                                    S Offline
                                    siki
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #37

                                    We never said it is OK to attack someone. We said they are not affected and they are naturally protected, naturally being "by nature" not "of course".

                                    1. impotent, primarily or secondary to an ailment; hermaphrodites and other congenital anomaly (such as blocked vagina), amputee (by accident or by pathology) (the can't have sex);

                                    2. bereaved psychologically (who had a horrible experience in their early years such as molested or raped children) or emotionally (death of partner/love); homosexual or people who are not attracted to the opposite sex; frigid (the don't want to have sex).

                                    These categories represent at least 30% of any population. Those are the non mu7San.

                                    I should also add to the second category nuns and monk

                                    I got it yay, I got it , yay Your highness! SO !, Do i have the royal permission to accuse the above categories ?

                                    And if you do permit , >D can i start( my accusations )with the last (red one)

                                    And what's "Darbari", if We may ask?

                                    commoners/elite witnessing/attending the Royal court/Darbar, are recognised as Darbaries, hail your highness hail

                                    And may i dare ask one more Question please?

                                    &

                                    1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • S Offline
                                      S Offline
                                      Samia
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #38

                                      (big sigh) oufff! Thanks God, you got it at last! bravo

                                      A reward for this big achievement for your likes You are granted more questions (this, of course, does not oblige us to answer them &gt

                                      I will be a way for today (despite the on-line-green-light), so don't take it as I am ignoring you, or worse, I do not have an answer

                                      1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • B Offline
                                        B Offline
                                        Bigmo
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #39

                                        Maybe it's both? A lot of these punishments have more than one single effect. And I think pregnancy outside of marriage would be included, why not?. All you would need is 4 doctors as witnesses, with DNA evidence.

                                        That proves pregnancy but not adultery. Maybe she was raped. Maybe the guy married her and then denied she was his wife.

                                        1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • S Offline
                                          S Offline
                                          siki
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #40

                                          Well, think of the

                                          1. impotent, primarily or secondary to an ailment; hermaphrodites and other congenital anomaly (such as blocked vagina), amputee (by accident or by pathology) (the can't have sex);

                                          What gets amputated by an accident in a female to make her impotent confused? and why are they being excluded in 24-4 confused? and if somebody cant have sex , does that mean that we can go on accusing her? brickwall

                                          siki

                                          1 Reply Last reply
                                          0
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Login

                                          • Don't have an account? Register

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Users