Talk:Zina

Primarysources
I don't think it is a good idea to use the interpretations of Javed Ahmad Ghamidi throughout this article. Who brought him up? A student? He is not a major figure in Fiqh and besides that it is better to view the interpretations of past jurists who were involved in usul al-fiqh on this issue.

The article relys on WP:OR, based on hadith interpretation and on an unindentified author on islamonline, which is no scholarly source in the first place, except when noted scholars are cited. --tickle me 23:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Unidentified scholar on Islam online?? Its Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi we're talking about here. He's one of the most influential scholars of the 20th century.Bless sins 02:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The islamonline link cites as name of Mufti the Islam Online Fatwa Editing Desk, which gives no information on the author. --tickle me 04:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The Islam online link doesn't provide much info to the actual content of the article.
 * Most of the info in the article is by Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi, written in his The Meaning of the Qur'an (book). The article does NOT lack primary sources.Bless sins 23:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Then provide these sources according WP:Verifiability using, so it can be verified. Claiming so is not enough. --tickle me 12:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Merging
I think this article, toghether with Fornication and Extra-marital relations articles, could be merged in a single wider-range article about Extramarital sex activities. --MaGioZal 00:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That would end up including large numbers of hadith and Qur'an and Scholarly quotes in a general article, and that seems not appropriate. Further, the article has a place in the Fiqh series. --Striver 13:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Fornication
"Islam has forbidden fornication, and regards it as the worst of the forbidden acts." Miraim Webster - fornication - "consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other -- compare ADULTERY" Miriam Webster - Adultery - "voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man and someone other than his wife or between a married woman and someone other than her husband" So adultery is better than fornication? (Another time I'll ask if rape is worse than fornication.) This section would be far clearer if it is possible to replace "fornication" with "adultery". If not then definitions for each term need to be given or linked to. SmithBlue 23:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The punishment for having sexual intercourse with one you are not married to is higher if you are married yourself.--Striver 17:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It is very difficult if not impossible to take a Mariam Webster dictionary defination of the world FORNICATION or Adultry when talking in Islam.. please note 1: 1 to 4 Wives are allowed in islam. 2: an unlimited number of Slave girls are allowed in islam.. (... and what your right hand possesses...) 3: Mutaa was only forbidden AFTER the death of the Prophet Mohammad .. by Omar bin Khattab.. the religion was totally complete before the Prophet Mohammad Died.. that means that no additions and / or deletions could be carried out. This is known as Bidda which is not allowed in the religion

later on the scholars gave their opinion as to what is allowed and not allowed which can be considered as THEIR OPINION but can not become a part of the religion for ALL TIMES TO COME. so the defination of Fornication / adultry listed in the western media should not be applied to islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Netgeek2k2 (talk • contribs) 05:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Namus and zina
There appear to be at least two "social rules" that could be in operation following extra-marital sex; zina and Namus. Is there information on how to differentiate between actions ordered by zina and actions ordered by namus? SmithBlue 04:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Found the answer in the Namus article - Zina punishments are carried out on court order and Namus is carried out by family. SmithBlue 11:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The main difference is that Namus is purely cultural thing and Zina is a concept discussed in Sharia and Fiqh. Cheers!  TruthSpreader reply 12:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sinners not punished according to shari'a law are punished severely after death
The article quotes: "In addition to the punishments rendered before death, sinners are punished severely after death, unless purged of their sins by a punishment according to shari'a law".

I have asked a citation for this. This is not specific to Zina, but any sin, small or big, in general in Islam. The above quote goes directly against the basic principles of Islam and Quran. The general principle of Islam is as follows:

- Any sin (great or small) is forgiven if the committer repents and asks Allah for forgiveness sincerely (essence of [39: 53] and hundreds of others). Sincerely is a key word here: How does one judge the repenting is sincere? the answer is crystal clear to the heart of the person repenting.

- If a person commits a sin and dies as a Muslim, but did not (or could not) repent and ask Allah for forgiveness: His decision will be made by Allah Almighty. Allah may forgive any of his/hers sins depending upon rest of his/hers life and circumstances, except: Shirk [4:48]. The "did not repent" and "could not repent" is another interesting discussion in itself.

- Anyone who dies a non-Muslim, the above doesn’t apply (similar to a Muslim committing Shirk in case above).

Hence the quotes above are really alien from Islamic point of view and should be removed if there is no concrete Quranic evidence for this.

Note that this part of discussion only comments on sin, repention and punishment rendered by Allah. A repenting person may still be punished by Sharia according to earthly circumstances, and this later part is not the focus of the discussion above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waqarz (talk • contribs) 23:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

TAMING THE BEAST
[NOTE: SLAVERY IS WRONG, AND THOSE WHO CAPTURE PEOPLE AND FORCE THEM TO SERVE UNDER THEIR RULE AS "PROPERTY" ARE SURELY COMMITTING A GREATER HUMAN ATROCITY THAN ANY ACT OF CONSENTUAL SEX? IT'S 2007, FORGET ABOUT SLAVERY... IT SHOULDN'T STILL BE PRACTISED -- AND WHERE IT IS, IT SHOULD BE ABOLISHED COMPLETELY.]

Sorry about the capitals, I was copying the passage below. Please note also the following section that I have isolated (added emphasis is mine):

"The crime of Zina has also be defined by various Islamic schools of thought: The Hanafi School of thought defined Zina as “sexual intercourse of a man and a woman who is neither his wife nor his slave girl nor is there any valid reason to believe that the sexual act was committed under the misapprehension that the woman was his own wife or his slave girl."

So rape isn't a "crime" if the victim is a slave? This is a disgusting, antique concept...

For more see:

". . . it is only Maliki school law of thought that include homosexual as an offence and it shall be categorized among the offences and the same punishment shall be applicable as it apply to unlawful sexual intercourse."

In Actual fact the hanafi school does believe that homosexuality is worse than zian and qias has been done upon it by Imam abu hanifa rahimahullah that a homesexual should be given punishment worse than zina it has been written in the famous usool ul shashee by a hanafi follower —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.149.160 (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems that some 'schools of thought' think that it is better to rape a slave girl than to have consentual homosexual pleasures. Which is the greater injustice, seriously? I strongly believe that it's slavery. I'm not gay myself, but I believe in equal rights.

''Furthermore, what about men raping other men, or women raping women? It does happen, quite commonly, and it should not be treated as any less of a crime than "conventional" rape merely because there isn't a member of the opposite sex involved. Sexism sucks.''

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.247.231 (talk) 22:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

TAMING THE BEAST (AL- ZINA)

Written By: MOHAMMED N. USMAN 300L (LAW) UNILORIN TAMING THE BEAST AL-ZINA. (ADULTERY AND FORNICATION)

INTRODUCTION

Zina and its punishment has been a matter serious concern not only in the Muslim world today but the world over. In particular, there had been a potent argument among the Muslims (between Muslim scholars and students of Islamic law in universities around the world) that the Hadd punishment of stoning to death is not justifiable. In their argument, some scholars are of the view that the Hadd punishment of Zina should be based on Qur’anic injunction only. Whereas others are of the view that the Hadd punishment of Zina should be based on both the Qur’anic and prophetic injunctions. What prompted this? Umar said: “ I am afraid after a long time has passed, people will say: ‘we do not find the verses of Rajim (stoning to death) in the book of Allah’; and consequently they will go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajim be inflicted on him who commit illegal sexual intercourse if he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses and pregnancy or confession.”

To this end, for a proper grasp of the topic, there is the need to understand the nature of the crime of Zina; Qur’anic and hadith injunctions for the Hadd punishment of Zina, proof of Zina, defenses of Zina and the conditions for the application of Hadd punishment of Zina. DEFINITION. Zina simply means unlawful sexual intercourse between man and woman who are not legally married to each other. In other words, it is a sexual intercourse by a man with a woman who is not his wife and a woman with a man who is not her husband.

In the simple legal term, Zina is defined as connection or insertion of the male and female sexual organs between those who are not legally married.

The crime of Zina has also be defined by various Islamic schools of thought:

The Hanafi School of thought defined Zina as “sexual intercourse of a man and a woman who is neither his wife nor his slave girl nor is there any valid reason to believe that the sexual act was committed under the misapprehension that the woman was his own wife or his slave girl.”

The Shafi’i School sees it (Zina), as “the insertion of a male organ into a female sexual organ.”

The Maliki School defines the crime of Zina as “the entry of male organ into the frontal sexual part or in the rectum of a woman or a man without legal right or any doubt of it being legal.”

Note that from the definition above, it is only Maliki school law of thought that include homosexual as an offence and it shall be categorized among the offences and the same punishment shall be applicable as it apply to unlawful sexual intercourse.

Therefore, unlawful intercourse can either be adultery (i.e. sexual intercourse between married persons who are not husband and wife) or fornication, which is sexual intercourse between mates who are unmarried. It is to be noted here that Islam considers Zina not only as sin but also as an act which opens the gate for many other shameful acts which: destroys the basis of the family, leads to quarrels and murder, ruins reputation and property, and which spreads numerous diseases, both physically and spiritually. Therefore, the Qur’an enjoins: “And come not near to the unlawful sexual intercourse. Verily, it is a Fahishah (i.e. anything that transgresses its limit), and an evil way (that leads one to Hell unless Allah forgives him)’’ 	Q17: 32 Also, Prophet Muhammed (SAW) declared Zina to be the greatest sin after Shirk (associationism). He says: “There is no sin after association greater in the eyes of Allah than a drop of semen which a man places in the womb which is not lawful for him.’’ There are some hadith in which murder is considered the greatest sin as compared to adultery (Zina). What a Muslim needs to know is to keep away from committing the crime, because it is a great sin in the sight of Allah. For this reason, severe punishment is reserved for this major crime in the penal law of Islamic theocracies and great torments for adulterers in the hereafter. The Prophet (SAW) is reported as saying that the dwellers of hell will have the punishments of smelling the pungent smell emanating from the private parts of Mohammed. He was further reported to have said that if a person commits adultery, Allah would open for him in his grave eighty doors of hell from which will emerge scorpions and snakes to torment him until the day of resurrection. It is to be noted here that, the first step towards adultery is provided by having a passionate look at an unknown woman. The Prophet (SAW) prohibit it by saying that: “Even to look at an unknown woman (with a passionate look) is also a sin” Also the prophet (S.A.W) prohibit in another hadith: “ The adultery of the leg is walking (toward an unlawful woman with bad intention) and the adultery of the hands is touching and patting (an unlawful woman) and the adultery of the eyes is casting passionate glance (at a woman).”

A more modern interpretation of this could be:

"If you ever look at pornography, or attend a strip club or other such risque venues, then you will be denied all the beautiful virgins that paradise has to offer. Rape doesn't exist in Heaven!"

PROOF OF ZINA.

1.	Four Witnesses: Zina may be established by four (4) witnesses who are: male, reliable, adult, sane, Muslim and must have attained the age of puberty. They must have witnessed the act directly at the same time and at the same period. In other words, the witnesses must have seen the sexual union complete. That is they must have seen the penis inside the receiving organ at the same period. It is to be noted that less than four (4) witness cannot prove the offence of Zina and they are considered as false witness even if they are telling the truth [or lying anyway; but four men couldn't possibly all be in it together, could they?].

It is stated in the Qur’an:

“ Why did they not produce four (4) witness? Since they (the slanderers) have not produce witnesses, then with Allah they are the liars” Q 23: 13

The question here is, how will the four (4) witnesses testify? The schools differ on it. They are stated thus: Maliki and Hanafi schools of thought are of the view that the four witnesses should be heard separately in one sitting.

Hambali school of thought is of the view that the four (4) witnesses shall be heard in one sitting by coming together collectively and not separately. And if one of them withdraws or his evidence is rejected, the remaining three witnesses are to be flogged 80 lashes each for Qazf (defamation). But they don't get punished for voyeurism?

Shafi’i school of thought is of the view that the four witnesses should be heard separately in more than one sitting and does not apply Qazf punishment in case the number of witness who gave evidence does not reach that number of four.

"It is to be noted here that mere seeing a man and a woman on top of each other does not mean they have committed the crime of Zina, or seeing the man and woman naked, standing, sitting or on top of each other does not indicate the commission of Zina. The most important thing is that, the witnesses must see the male organ inside the female sexual organ who they believe that they are not married to each other."

(It merely means that the witnesses are peeping Toms who should mind their own business.)

2.	Confession: One single confession is sufficient to establish the guilt of Zina. Mere confession is not enough; it has to be made by a person who is sane, an adult and must make his/her confession freely with out any element of compulsion. It was reported by Abu Huraira that a person from among the Muslims came to Prophet (S.A.W) while he was in the mosque and Said that he had committed adultery. The Holy Prophet (S.A.W,) turned away from him. He came around again facing the Holy prophet (S.A.W) and said that he had committed adultery. The Holy prophet (S.A.W) turned away until he did that four times, testifying against himself .The prophet (S.A.W) inquired whether the man was sane. It was reported that he was sane. The Prophet inquired whether he was married, it was confirmed that he was. Then the prophet (S.A.W) ordered that he should be stoned to death and it was carried out. It is to be noted that the confession made in the case of Zina can be withdrawn at any time before the infliction of the punishment. Shafi’i and Hambali schools reiterate the position that the offender who confesses to the commission of Zina can withdraw or contradict it. They said, if a man runs away when stones are thrown at him, stoning should be stopped but if he sticks to his word by refusing to run away then he should be stoned until he dies. They based their view on the Hadith of prophet (S.A.W) in which he asked his companion who engaged in stoning as to why they had not left the man escape. But Maliki is of the view that a person who has made confession of his crime voluntarily should be stoned to death even if he has to be chased. It is to be noted that, the person who confessed to have committed Zina is not to be questioned about the other party with whom the Zina has been committed. But where the person confessing happens to mention the name of the other party, then the other party is to be questioned in order to see whether the person confessing has falsely accused him /her in order to determine the crime of Qazf. If that happens, he will be punished with 80 lashes for Qazf. This can be found in one of the Prophetic hadith, where a man came to the Holy Prophet (S.A.W) and confessed a Zina with a specific woman. But when the woman was called, she denied the act. The Prophet (S.A.W) inflicted a punishment of 100 lashes on the man (who was unmarried) but left the woman unpunished. 3.	Pregnancy: The act of Zina is established by the pregnancy of the woman concerned especially when she is unmarried and does not allege that she was raped. There is difference of opinion on whether pregnancy alone is sufficient to inflict the punishment for Zina upon a woman. According to caliph Umar and Maliki School, pregnancy furnishes a sufficient proof of the act of Zina on the part of a woman who does not have husband. But majority of the jurist do not subscribe to this view and they assert that mere pregnancy (without witnesses or confession on the part of the pregnant woman) does not make her liable to such a severe punishment. They say that the spirit of Shar’iah shows that the benefit of doubt goes to the offender even if it is very slight.

PUNISHMENT FOR ZINA. There are different Hadd punishments mentioned in the Holy Qur’an and Sunnah for adulterers. It is to be noted that the verses were revealed gradually so as to be easily acceptable to the new converts of Islam who were steep in the vice of Zina in the Arab society. The first revelation stated thus: “ If any of your women are guilty of adultery, take the evidence of four (reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to house until death do claim them or Allah ordains for them some (other) way’’ Q 4: 15. The second revelation covered both man and woman and was little regarded as punishment of Zina. It reads: “And the two persons (man and woman) among you who commit illegal sexual intercourse, hurt them both. And if they repent (promise Allah that they will never repeat, i.e. commits illegal sexual intercourse and other similar sins) and do righteous deeds, leave them. Surely Allah is ever all-Forgiving (the one who forgives and accept repentance) and He is the Most Merciful ”Q4: 16. The third revelation came with specific punishment for Zina. It reads: “The man and woman guilty of sexual intercourse, flog each of them with hundred strips Let not pity withhold you in their case in a punishment prescribed by Allah, if you believe in Allah and the last day. And let a part of believers witness their punishment” Q24: 2. When this verse was revealed, it was understood that those guilty of adultery should be given one hundred lashes as a punishment. But the Prophet (S.A.W) classified the punishment by saying: “Take from me, take from me, undoubtedly Allah has now show path for them (adulterers) .For unmarried person guilty of fornication, the punishment is one hundred lashes and exile for one year .For married adulterers, it is one hundred lashes and stoning to death.” The above hadith shows that if the offender is not married he/she should be given 100 lashes and should be sent on exile (away from his/her home) for a period of one year. But if the offender is married, he/she should be given one hundred lashes and be stoned to death. But some jurist were of the view that, since the offender should be stoned to death there is no need of punishing him with the 100 lashes as the Prophet stoned to death two Jewish adulterers and did not punish them with lashes. Therefore, the issue of stoning to death has been an issue of controversy among the Muslims; Muslim scholars and the student of Islamic law as stated above. This is because some scholars believe that, since there is no specific area where Almighty Allah made mention in any of the Qur’anic verses that, one who commit adultery should be stoned to death. That is Q4: 15—16, Q 24:2. And they rejected the Prophetic provision saying that it is not justifiable. Therefore, the adulterers should be punished by 100 lashes as stated by the Qur’an. Whereas some of them are of the view that, since the Prophet (S.A.W) was a messenger of Allah  and Almighty Allah have also declared that: “the Prophet do not speak of his own volition unless he did as I (ALLAH) asked him to do. Also they based their view on What Allah say in Qur’an 14:13, that: “…confine them to houses until death claims them or Allah ordains for them some (other) way” And when the last revelation came, he based the punishment of Zina on flogging by 100 lashes whether is married or not. And when the Prophet (S.A.W.) specified the punishment, that is, for unmarried to be punished with 100 lashes and exile from his/her home, and for married should be punished by hundred lashes and stoning to death, we can then say the prophet (S.A.W.) had established the rule and the punishment is justifiable. Therefore, the punishment can be briefly listed as follows: 1.	FLOGGING AND EXILE. 2.	FLOGGING AND STONING TO DEATH.

It is to be noted that, where there is any doubt or confusion in establishing the crime of Zina, the Hadd punishment of stoning to death should not be applicable .The Prophet (S.A.W) said thus: “ Prevent the application of Hadd punishment as much as you can when any doubt exist. ” CONDITIONS FOR HADD PUNISHMENT OF ZINA. The Hadd punishment of Zina is inflicted when the following conditions are satisfied. 1.	The offender should be an adult male or female, that is, the Hadd punishment will not be applicable when a lunatic or an insane man commits adultery or fornication because he is not in his senses. But in the case of a drunkard who commits Zina when drunk, the Hadd punishment will be applicable when he regains his senses back. 2.	It should be committed or done voluntarily, i.e. the person that commit the Zina must have done it with his/her free will before the Hadd punishment can be applicable. Whereas if a woman is raped, such act cannot attract the punishment because forceful rape is to have intercourse with man or woman under duress. Walid bin Hujaz narrated that a woman went out, during the time of Holy Prophet (S.A.W.), to observe Salat and a man who met her, attacked her and got his desire. She shouted for help and went off. When a company of emigrant came by, she told them what the man had done. They seized the man and brought him to the Prophet (S.A.W.) who said to the woman: “Go away Allah has forgiven you.” Then he asked the companion to punish the man for the act. 3.	The adulterer should be a Muslim. The Hadd punishment of Zina should apply to only Muslim. The punishment can be extended to non-Muslim who voluntarily request the punishment to be applicable on him/her. As in the case of two Jewish who made confession to the prophet and asked for the Hadd punishment of Zina to be made on them. And the Prophet (S.A.W.) ordered them to be stoned to death. 4.	The adulterer should be a free person, not a slave. Where a slave woman is guilty of immoral sexual conduct, she shall be liable to half the penalty to which a free woman is liable. This is because of her weak social status. She is more expose to temptation than a free married woman. Hence, the punishment of a slave in relation to lashing is half the penalty of a free woman. 5.	The adulterer should not only have been legally married but must have consummated the marriage with his wife.

DEFENSES OF ZINA. A woman who is accused of unlawful sexual intercourse (Zina) on the strength of her pregnancy has the following defenses based on doubt. 1.	If she was married before and the pregnancy occurred after the expiry of the waiting period (Iddah period), she may claim that the child was nevertheless fathered by her former husband, since Maliki doctrine recognizes the possibilities of pregnancies lasting for four or seven years, a phenomenon called ``the sleeping foetus’’. 2.	Another defense is that she claims that intercourse took place without penetration (between her thighs), but that the sperm enter her vagina. Since penetration is an essential element of the definition of Zina. This constitutes sufficient uncertainty to avert the application of the Hadd penalty. 3.	Finally, she may claim that the pregnancy was as a result of a sexual intercourse that took place during her sleep without her knowledge. The defense that she has been raped is different in this respect. This is because Imam Maliki state that, the evidence of rape shall not be accepted unless there is a circumstantial evidence e.g. testimonies to the effect that she came to her parents while being upset and screaming that she had been raped, or with torn cloths or covered with blood as a result of fighting.

CONSEQUENCES OF ZINA Almighty Allah has made Zina punishable on Muslims because of the consequences it has. This was declared in the Holy Qur’an that: ‘And come not near to the unlawful sexual intercourse. Verily, it is a Fahisah (i.e. any thing that transgress its limit) and an evil way (that leads one to hell unless Allah forgives 	 him). Q 17: 32 Therefore some of the side effects of Zina are: 1.	Sexually Transmitted Diseases (S T D): They are the disease, which are not in existence in ancient time, but common nowadays. These diseases find their way into the life of fornicators and adulterers, men and women. The STD is spreading worldwide at a very high rate. Due to this, diseases like H.I.V., gonorrhea and syphilis are increasing continually day by day. This is because there has not been any solution in eradicating these diseases. Hence, final solace lies with God, that is, the enforcement of law and forbidden of the act of Zina among the citizens and the application of Hadd punishment. 2.	Abortion And Motherless Babies: - Youths nowadays indulge in sexual prelusions which leads to unwanted pregnancy and extreme measures to get rid of unwanted pregnancy is taken by going for an abortion which a times may be unsuccessful. When this happens, the unprepared parents because of their financial incapability result to dumping of these babies. The family in Islam is supposed to provide social and financial securities for a child. Not only that the family shows a child care, love and affection but also gives a child the sense of belonging and the humanliness he/she desires. Unfortunately, the dumped babies, because of their lack of parental care and affection, grow up to become nuisance to the society. This explains the high level of crime in our society. 3.	Increasing Numbers Of Prostitutes: - That is selling of one’s pride or sexuality given by God in a bid to earn money. All this problems kept increasing for the reason that, the law enforcers are not enforcing the law properly. Instead of forbidding unnecessary intercourse between mates, they encouraged it by means of freedom or free world. Zina in all ramifications has no merit to humanity at large: it debases the family values, stirs up controversies, facilitates the wild spread of diseases and above all, spiritual demotion. Unfortunately, it is not only the perpetrators of this evil suffer. This is because sexually transmitted diseases, such HIV aids and hepatitis can be contacted by innocent persons through blood contact. Hence, we must all stand up against this beast in our midst by following the commandment of Allah as it is in the Qur’an. This is by enforcing and implementing the Hadd punishment of Zina.

CONCLUSION 	All the conditions as spelt out by the Qur’an and hadith state clearly that the proofs for the establishment of Zina must be without any element of doubt. This is however difficult in our growing and developing world. More so, Islam forbids spying and eves-dropping into people’s privacy. The most difficult of these, however, is that of the evidence of four witnesses who saw the male copulatory organ in that of the female sexual organ. This acid test from God is mainly to check the consciousness of man in God Almighty and the acknowledgment in practices of the fact that God is all-Seeing and all-Knowing. REFERENCE.

1.	YUSUF ALI, 	The Translation Of The Holy Qur’an. 2.	The Sunnah Of The Prophet. 3.	ABDULRHAMAN DOI, Shari’ah The Islamic Law. 4.	AL-AWA M.S, (1982), 	Punishment In Islamic Law, American trust Publication Indianapolis; p.14. 5.	AL-MASLAH,	 Journal Of Law Religion: NAMLAS. UNIL. 6.	RUUD PETERS, Islamic Criminal Law In Nigeria. 7.	WALILULLAH, MR (1986) Muslim Jurisprudence And The Qur’anic Law Of Crime: Taj co. Delhi: p 138. 8.	YAHAYA YUNUSA BAMBALE Crime And Punishment Under Islamic Law. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.250.43.59 (talk) 11:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

Literal meaning of the word ZINA is "doing wrong" It is ASSUMED that it means EXTRAMARIATIAL SEX.. i donot know who WIKIPEDIA does its meanings of words.. do they go by what is ASSUMED or SUPPOSED TO MEAN or what the word actually means!!!

I know for a fact that rape is a crime despite any conditions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.95.78 (talk) 23:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Meaning
The article starts: "Zina (Arabic: الزناء) is extramarital sex in Islam"

Is this strictly speaking correct? My understanding was that zina covered both extramarital sex (i.e. between a married person and someone not their spouse) and pre-marital sex (i.e. between two people, neither of whom are married). AndrewRT(Talk) 22:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And I understand it covers rape as well. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we need an etymology section? 86.21.101.131 (talk) 21:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The meaning you mentiond for Arabic part is not for Zina, that explanation describe the word Zena. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.117.67 (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Blogs, advocacy and other unreliable sources
User at 99.120.152.176 – I have reverted your change. Your contribution is welcome, but must cite sources that meet wikipedia's reliability guidelines: WP:RS. RLoutfy (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Unreliable websites sourced content
Sharif uddin – I have reverted your changes. Websites such as discover-the-truth.com, WP:SPS, advocacy, blogs and the like, do not meet WP:RS guidelines. You are welcome to add content from reliable sources, such as those from peer reviewed scholarly sources, and other sources with editorial oversight. RLoutfy (talk) 09:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Rape and zina section
The article mentions, "when the rape accusation is proven, there is no punishment on the victim". RLoutfy (talk) 14:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Rape
In the article: "Traditionally, a married or unmarried Muslim male could have sex outside marriage with a non-Muslim slave, with or without her consent, and such sex was not considered zina." and it cites 3 things which are unspecific. But more importantly, those citations violate WP:PRIMARY sources, such as Muwatta Malik in which we find that rape is forbidden:

--HakimPhilo (talk) 16:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

It does not violate this text. Malik is referring to a man who rapes another person's slave. This is clear from the penalty. He must pay the amount by which he has diminished her value - this would be paid to her owner. If a man has sex with his own slave, any compensation would be owed to himself, which is absurd. You might find it uncomfortable that Islamic law permitted men to have sex with their slaves, but it's true. This was the case throughout Islamic history until the abolition of slavery. Of course it's wrong: everything to do with slavery is wrong. But Islamic law was produced in a society where slavery was widespread and uncontroversial, and while it placed some restrictions on slavery compared to previous legal traditions such as Roman law, it nonetheless granted slaveowners a lot of rights over their slaves. This aspect of Islamic law is not relevant to Muslims today because slavery has been abolished everywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.120.212 (talk) 11:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY
Per WP:BRD lets discuss the unexplained edits by user Sharif uddin, get a consensus. WP:PRIMARY content is unacceptable in wiki articles. RLoutfy (talk) 16:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, RLoutfy, on this revert and this edit. Sharif uddin reverted, though. As the article's edit history might indicate, I was also concerned about Sharif uddin making those aforementioned edits to the article. Flyer22 (talk) 03:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * please discuss your changes here and try to reach consensus. I have reverted you because your edits are disruptive in adding back "citation needed" tagged sentences, removing WP:RS content, and are adding summary from blogs / questionable websites / non-WP:RS such as www.bismikaallahuma.org, www.understanding-islam.com, etc. You are edit warring in this article, which isn't proper. In the case of one of your edits on Ma malakat aymanukum, do you have a RS cite for the suggested change? On rest, please explain your edits and try a collaborative approach through a talk page discussion. I invite @ for WP:3O. RLoutfy (talk) 07:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have removed zoophilia and incest sections, because the cite does not state that these are zina. If you want to add it, find a reliable source that states that zoophilia and incest is zina under sharia. Again, remember not to interpret WP:PRIMARY sources, nor use questionable sources such as blogs and random advocacy or such websites. RLoutfy (talk) 08:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Can I use islamqa.info link as secondary source? Its one of the most reliable sunni qustion and answer website. Sharif uddin (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is a secondary reliable source from the book tafsir Ibn Kathir for ma malakat aymanukum edit. Sharif uddin (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @Sharif uddin: You can't use islamqa.info or qtafsir.com or Q&A advocacy websites or blog websites as sources. These are questionable sources, because these do not meet WP:RS guidelines. The best sources are to be found in scholarly books, peer-reviewed journals, publications where the identity of the author and editorial oversight is clearly established, etc. This is not the case with these websites. RLoutfy (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the late reply, RLoutfy; I agree with you on this matter, obviously. Flyer22 (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

RLoutfy, the relatively new account removed this piece, stating, "unsupported in light of the Malik Muwatta' quote." The content was sourced, however, and is one of the pieces that was in dispute (as seen above in this section). I'm not familiar with the zina literature, so I'm noting this here. Looking at CounterTime's edit history, I can see that he is no WP:Newbie. Judging by his first few edits to Wikipedia, he also seems to be familiar with you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * last contribution was this post, in 12 December. I don't think she's still active, although I hope she comes back. Anyway, what I meant by that was that Malik's Muwatta (specifically 36 16.14) makes it clear that rape is forbidden in the case of a free women and a slave; And using tertiary sources from non-experts to push a POV statement violates WP policies.
 * 16:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)


 * I'd already looked at RLoutfy's contributions before WP:Pinging him in my "16:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)" post above. I pinged him anyway because it's common for editors to take a week or two, or one or more months, off from editing Wikipedia. Some of us are more active than others. I also pinged him so that he will be alerted to the matter when he comes back (experienced Wikipedians often come back) or via email (some editors have the notifications set up in a way that reaches them via email). As for your assertion about "using tertiary sources from non-experts," I don't know about all that, and I'm quite familiar with the WP:Tertiary policy. WP:Primary sources are more of a concern. A scholar does not have to be an Islam scholar to report on Islam matters. And where sources disagree, it's common to present both sides with WP:Due weight, unless one side is too much of a minority viewpoint. Either way, I'm taking this article off my WP:Watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand that, thanks. 17:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Hello - the interpretation of the passage from Malik is wrong. Malik is referring to a situation where a man rapes a slave belonging to someone else. Historically, a man having non-consensual sex with his own slave was not considered rape, just as a man having non-consensual sex with his wife was not considered rape. A man was legally entitled to have sex with his wife and his slaves, so their consent was irrelevant. This is obviously uncomfortable to read today, but we should not underplay the reality of patriarchy in history. Men had rights over women's bodies in many pre-modern societies, including the Islamic.

Lead rewrite
The lead contained several statements that contradicted RSs and others that were generally confused. I've checked a couple of accessible citations and found gross source misreprestation, while others cited books with no page numbers, prompting a measure of skepticism about the rest. Since I can't easily access other citations, I've replaced most of the lead with a more comprehensive version based on standard academic references. Eperoton (talk) 03:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Zina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071229095410/http://www.hrcp-web.org/NCSW_Report.cfm to http://www.hrcp-web.org/NCSW_Report.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100705191356/http://www.asmasociety.org///perspectives/article_8.html to http://www.asmasociety.org/perspectives/article_8.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Please help me to edit the section 'Homosexuality and Zina'
I want to change the following section but I don't know how. I am new. I also need help with rewriting it into encyclopedia style language. -- Some scholars indicate this verse as the prescribed punishment for homosexuality in the Quran (altough the verse does not mention homosexuality nor the gender of the perpetrators):

However, there are very different interpretations of ayat 16. Yusuf Ali is the only translator who translates the word وَٱلَّذَانِ Waallathani with "two men", all the other translations I know use "the two" or "two persons". The website/source above perhaps misquotes the translator because the exact same translator 'Yusuf Ali' apparently says 'two persons' not 'two men' on another website 'Quran Explorer'. . Maybe he made a mistake in the first edition of his translation and corrected it in later translations?

In Arabic the Quran refers literally to: وَٱلَّذَانِ Waallathani "And The two who" - أۡتِيَـٰنِهَا yatiyaniha "do it" - مِنڪُمۡ minkum "among you" - فَـَٔاذُوهُمَا faathoohuma "then hurt them both".

Firstly "two who" can mean both a male and female person. Secondly there is no mention of homosexuality or lewdness or any other concrete act, just the act of doing/committiting "it". This is not a difference in interpretation, or a preference for a specific translation. "It" simply does not have a semantic meaning of its own, other than referring back to something previously said. To be able to understand what is meant by "commit it", you need to look back to the previous ayat 15 where the act of fahishata (here you can have a variety of different translations such as: ugly act, lewdness) is comitted by "those of your women". Since "commit it" refers back to "lewdness" comitted by "those of your women" it is impossible that it refers to (male) homosexuality. Even if (I don't think so) in ayat 15 by lewdness it was meant an homosexual act, it would have been lesbian homosexuality. Also, the whole Chapter/Surah is called "An-Nisa" (Women). It is mostly about the rules, duties and rights of women; Daughters, wives, widows and their orphaned children (dowry, marriage, divorce, inheritance, punishment, protection against slander and mistreatment). Don't you think it would be strange to describe male homosexuality under the chapter "women"? 82.75.118.49 (talk) 09:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Sura An-Nisa, ayat 15 also says: faamsikoohunna fee albuyooti hatta yatawaffahunna almawtu aw yajAAala Allahu lahunna sabeelan 'hold them (Female form) in the houses until death makes them (Female form) die, or God makes for them (Female form) another way (through new legislation). In Sura Nur, Ayat 2 and 3, flogging with a 100 lashes is prescribed as a punishment for adultery (if the accuser can provide 4 witnesses to court). This later verse abroggates the old one. 82.75.118.49 (talk) 11:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

However, there are different interpretations of the last verse where who the Quran refers to as "two among you". Pakistani scholar Javed Ahmed Ghamidi sees it as a reference to premarital sexual relationships between men and women. In his opinion, the preceding Ayat of Sura Nisa deals with prostitutes of the time. He believes these rulings were temporary and were abrogated later when a functioning state was established and society was ready for permanent rulings, which came in Sura Nur, Ayat 2 and 3, prescribing flogging as a punishment for adultery. He does not see stoning as a prescribed punishment, even for married men, and considers the Hadiths quoted supporting that view to be dealing with either rape or prostitution, where the strictest punishment under Islam for spreading "fasad fil arz", meaning mischief in the land, referring to egregious acts of defiance to the rule of law was carried out.

---

Section Zina Look, I have a braintumor in my brainstem and cerebellum. I don't have the energy nor the time to edit (learn to) on Wikipedia. I mention this to explain why I don't take the time learning how to properly edit on Wikipedia. It's not because I'm lazy. Someone please take the time to check if what I am saying is true, take acceptable sources and make the proper edits to the article. I don’t want incorrect information about this verse on Wikipedia. Both Muslim extremists (who want justification in the Quran to harm homosexuals) and haters of Muslims want this verse to be referring to homosexuality when it is not. There is no (worldly) punishment for homosexuality or call to harm homosexuals in the Quran.

On the talk page of Zina I explained the reasons why I made my edits. I gave sources on the talk page and asked for help before I made any edits. When nobody replied, I just went ahead and made the edits. My changes were reverted asking for sources and saying that it was original research (it is not).

When someone put this translation of Surah 4, ayat 16 on Wikipedia

did anyone check the source? I did. When you go to the link there are 3 different translations. Out of these, 2 translate Waallathani as "the two who" and only one (Yusuf Ali) with "two men". So even according to its own source (the majority of 3) it should be gender neutral "the two". The vast majority of other sources (10 out of 12 translations I know about, I give links at the end of this message) also translate it with “the two”, “both” or “twain”. It should not have been accepted on Wikipedia in the first place.

Also, chapter/surah An-Nisa (Arabic for women) deals with issues related to women such as marriage, divorce, dowry, inheritance of daughters and so on. Maybe this is original research according to Wikipedia but is it really wrong to mention that an ayat about an act between two men would be misplaced in this chapter about women? Simple logic. Do I really need a source to be able to say that? It just is the truth. It should be at least mentioned that the surah is called “Women” and is about issues related to women.

The third reason is that in ayat 16 the word yatiyaniha means “commit it” or “guilty thereof”. Something (bad) is done but there is no concrete meaning of what is done. It refers to something that is said before. Either you look at the previous ayat 15 to look for what is referred to by it/thereof and accept that what is referred to involves women who are explicitly mentioned in ayat 15, or you don’t look at the previous ayat and don’t know what ayat 16 is about.

The word yateeyaniha (commit it) used in ayat 16 is simply not the same as the words yateena alfahishata (commit indecency) in ayat 15. How can I possibly explain this? The exact literal translation would have been “commit it” but many translators have replaced “it” with “indecency” or ‘lewdness’ to make (somewhat) clear what ayat 16 was talking about. Even the source used by the person that inserted “if two men” into the article, has one (of 3) translation that says “guilty thereof”. Of other sources about half say “commit it”, “guilty thereof” or just “two who are guilty” without referring to a concrete act. It should be at least mentioned that “commit it”, “guilty thereof” are valid translations (and thus force the reader to look at the previous ayat 15 which is about women).

Translators using “two who”, “twain” or “both” and “commit it”, “guilty thereof” or just “two who are guilty” without referring to a concrete act are: Ahmad Raza Khan, Asad, Daryabadi, Maududi, Maulana Mohammad Ali, Pickthall, Qarai, Qaribullah & Darwish, Sahih International and Ali Unal.

http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.sahih/4:16 (multiple translators) https://quran.com/4/16 http://www.alquranenglish.com/quran-surah-an-nisa-16-qs-4-16-in-arabic-and-english-translation (multiple translators) http://www.quranexplorer.com/quran?Sura=4&FromVerse=15&ToVerse=16 82.75.118.49 (talk) 06:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You're making some errors with regard to both classical Arabic grammar and Islamic legal interpretation. First, there are no gender-neutral pronouns in Arabic, it is a highly gendered language and every word is either masculine or feminine. This pronoun, alladhani, is the masculine dual. Now since Arabic grammar treats masculine as the default, masculine duals and plurals can be used to refer to groups including men and women. Feminine duals and plurals are only used when every member of the group is a woman. However, you can't say that translating it in this way is correct and translating it as two men is wrong - it's ambiguous, both readings are grammatically correct. Second, in Arabic relative pronouns do not necessarily refer back to what came before. They can be used that way, but they can also be used as a standalone noun at the beginning of a sentence. This is the usage here - the two first words in the sentence, alladhani ya'tiyaniha, can be translated as "Those who commit it." The only reference back in this phrase is the pronoun at the end, "ha" (it), which refers back to lewdness.
 * The purpose of the Wikipedia article is to explain the Islamic legal concept of zina. So it should explain how Muslim jurists interpreted this verse. Some jurists have read it as referring to two men, and some jurists have read it as referring to either two men or a man and a woman. It's not up to Wikipedia to decide which interpretation is correct! Even if it were, we can't decide this by comparing different English translations - Islamic legal scholarship took place in Arabic and English translations were irrelevant. Nor can you argue that it must refer to a man and a woman because it's in the sura of women. That's just the title of the sura. It's given that title because it discusses women in several places, but it covers all kinds of subjects - it's one of the longest suras in the Koran.
 * In sum, this verse has formed part of Islamic legal thinking about male homosexuality. Therefore it's legitimate to include it here, and it makes sense to translate it in the way that it was understood by those jurists who read it as referring to male homosexuality. The fact that it's been read in other ways as well doesn't matter. The point of this article is not to correct Muslim jurists, it's to explain what Muslim jurists thought and said. We may find it objectionable, but the fact is that some Muslim jurists, historically and today, have considered homosexual intercourse between men a serious crime deserving harsh punishment. To ignore that in this article would be equivalent to an article on homosexuality in British law not mentioning that it was a criminal offense until 1967. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jb212 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Please help me to edit the section '1.1 Quran'
I want to change the following section but I don't know how. I am new. I also need help with rewriting it into encyclopedia style language. -- The Qur'an deals with zināʾ in several places. First is the Qur'anic general rule that commands Muslims not to commit zināʾ:

Contrary to popular belief, the punishment for Zina in the Quran is not stoning to death but flogging with a 100 lashes if the accuser can provide 4 witnesses to the act. The Qur'an does not mention the act of stoning (Rajm) at all. If the accuser cannot produce 4 witnesses, he himself will be punished by flogging with 80 lashes. It is much more likely that the accuser will get punished for merely uttering the accusation (since he requires 4 witnesses to prove the accusation) than the accused (very unlikely to catch the act together with 4 witnesses or keeping your calm and calling 4 witnesses).(, Quote - "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.")

Some modern Quranists suggest that stoning to death should not be part of Sharia, as they believe only the Qur'an should be the basis of sharia. The hadiths that prescribe stoning actually contradict the Qu'ran. 82.75.118.49 (talk) 12:50, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

In response to the above comment: you are correct that stoning is not in the Koran, however it is a mistake to think that the Koran is superior to the hadith as a source of law. The "Quranism" you refer to is a fringe, marginal idea in Islamic history. Virtually all of the jurists in the history of Islamic legal thought see the Koran and the Sunna (the practice of the Prophet) as equally authoritative scriptural sources of Islamic law. The Sunna is known via the hadith, the written reports of what the Prophet said and did. There is always a question of authenticity about any individual hadith, which is why the discipline of hadith criticism emerges, to distinguish between reliable and unreliable hadith. But the underlying knowledge that the hadith report - i.e. the Sunna itself - is authoritative. The hadith on stoning are considered reliable. So the fact that stoning isn't mentioned in the Koran is meaningless: it does not mean that there is any serious question about whether stoning is a valid penalty in Islamic law. It is.

Your other point, about the very high evidentiary bar, is much more important. It is virtually impossible to provide evidence sufficient to justify applying either hadd penalty - stoning or lashing. There must be four free, adult, Muslim men, who are all of good character, as witnesses. They must testify that their witnessed the actual penetration. Already at this point it's implausible - in almost all cases these witnesses wouldn't exist. If, incredibly, there were this many witnesses, the law gives them a series of disincentives. They are not legally or morally obliged to testify: in fact, many jurists say that it's better if they don't. If a witness testifies but the case is not proved, that witness is guilty of false accusation of zina, which carries a penalty of 80 lashes. If the case is proved, the witnesses have to throw the stones. The law even makes proof by confession difficult. The offender would have to confess four times, while the judge throughout encourages him or her to retract the confession. Even after confessing four times, the offender can still retract at any time, including during the punishment. If the offender manages to escape during the punishment, that is taken to be retraction of the confession. In other words, to stone someone to death on the basis of confession, he would have to actually want to be stoned to death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.12.225 (talk) 12:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Zina
Section Zina Look, I have a braintumor in my brainstem and cerebellum. I don't have the energy nor the time to edit (learn to) on Wikipedia. I mention this to explain why I don't take the time learning how to properly edit on Wikipedia. It's not because I'm lazy. Someone please take the time to check if what I am saying is true, take acceptable sources and make the proper edits to the article. I don’t want incorrect information about this verse on Wikipedia. Both Muslim extremists (who want justification in the Quran to harm homosexuals) and haters of Muslims want this verse to be referring to homosexuality when it is not. There is no (worldly) punishment for homosexuality or call to harm homosexuals in the Quran.

On the talk page of Zina I explained the reasons why I made my edits. I gave sources on the talk page and asked for help before I made any edits. When nobody replied, I just went ahead and made the edits. My changes were reverted asking for sources and saying that it was original research (it is not).

When someone put this translation of Surah 4, ayat 16 on Wikipedia

"If two (men) among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, Leave them alone; for Allah is Oft-returning, Most Merciful."| Qur'an, Sura 4 (Al-Nisa), ayat 16

did anyone check the source? I did. When you go to the link there are 3 different translations. Out of these, 2 translate Waallathani as "the two who" and only one (Yusuf Ali) with "two men". So even according to its own source (the majority of 3) it should be gender neutral "the two". The vast majority of other sources (10 out of 12 translations I know about, I give links at the end of this message) also translate it with “the two”, “both” or “twain”. It should not have been accepted on Wikipedia in the first place.

Also, chapter/surah An-Nisa (Arabic for women) deals with issues related to women such as marriage, divorce, dowry, inheritance of daughters and so on. Maybe this is original research according to Wikipedia but is it really wrong to mention that an ayat about an act between two men would be misplaced in this chapter about women? Simple logic. Do I really need a source to be able to say that? It just is the truth. It should be at least mentioned that the surah is called “Women” and is about issues related to women.

The third reason is that in ayat 16 the word yatiyaniha means “commit it” or “guilty thereof”. Something (bad) is done but there is no concrete meaning of what is done. It refers to something that is said before. Either you look at the previous ayat 15 to look for what is referred to by it/thereof and accept that what is referred to involves women who are explicitly mentioned in ayat 15, or you don’t look at the previous ayat and don’t know what ayat 16 is about.

The word yateeyaniha (commit it) used in ayat 16 is simply not the same as the words yateena alfahishata (commit indecency) in ayat 15. How can I possibly explain this? The exact literal translation would have been “commit it” but many translators have replaced “it” with “indecency” or ‘lewdness’ to make (somewhat) clear what ayat 16 was talking about. Even the source used by the person that inserted “if two men” into the article, has one (of 3) translation that says “guilty thereof”. Of other sources about half say “commit it”, “guilty thereof” or just “two who are guilty” without referring to a concrete act. It should be at least mentioned that “commit it”, “guilty thereof” are valid translations (and thus force the reader to look at the previous ayat 15 which is about women).

Translators using “two who”, “twain” or “both” and “commit it”, “guilty thereof” or just “two who are guilty” without referring to a concrete act are: Ahmad Raza Khan, Asad, Daryabadi, Maududi, Maulana Mohammad Ali, Pickthall, Qarai, Qaribullah & Darwish, Sahih International and Ali Unal.

http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.sahih/4:16 (multiple translators) https://quran.com/4/16 http://www.alquranenglish.com/quran-surah-an-nisa-16-qs-4-16-in-arabic-and-english-translation (multiple translators) http://www.quranexplorer.com/quran?Sura=4&FromVerse=15&ToVerse=16 82.75.118.49 (talk) 06:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi 82.75.118.49, thank you for taking the time to explain your edits. To me, your edits appeared to be adding original research to the article. They also seemed to remove valid referenced information from the article. Furthermore, you added questions to the article, making it appear like a speech or an essay: "Maybe he made a mistake in the first edition of his translation and corrected it in later translations?" — "Don't you think it would be strange to describe male homosexuality under the chapter 'women'?" — "Firstly," "Secondly," … — "To be able to understand what is meant by 'commit it', you need to look back" etc. etc. etc. — Wikipedia is an encyclopedia! Also, this page might be a good reading: Manual of Style/Words to watch I will copy this discussion to the articles talk page, so that other editors can fix the problems you've pointed out. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Would just like to add that beyond the original research issue, 82.75.118.49 is simply wrong about the Koran (and definitely isn't qualified to be doing original research on it!) They can't simply assert that it's "simple logic" that the sura of women is about women. They would just need to read the sura in question to find out they're wrong! The title is sura of women but in fact it covers many topics - as well as discussing women in various places, it also has other sections condemning idolatry; discussing holy war and the prayers to be said during it; criticizing Jews for not revering Mary and Jesus; criticizing Christians for thinking that Jesus is God; giving alms; all kinds of things.

What is this double talk nonsense in the lead section?
In the third paragraph of the lead section, the following is written:

 Aside from "a few rare and isolated" instances from the pre-modern era and several recent cases, there is no historical record of stoning for zina 

I haver no other words for this gibberish other than, WTF????

If we apply a biased and POV removal tool, and inject a pretty hefty de-gibberishing, then this nonsense actually reads as:

 Apart from when this used to happen in the olden days, and when it still happens these days, this never happens! 

I seriously think this blatantly biased attempt at mitigating religiously organised hate crimes/crimes against humanity/etc etc, is so bad, that I doubt Wikipedia has enough inline tags to cover it all! I'll start of with a POV one... Thoughts? M R G WIKI999 (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, my thoughts it that we depend upon what reliables sources have to say about the subject.
 * From
 * As an example, let’s take a look at the case of adultery or zina. Based on the Hadith of Prophet Muhammad, all schools of Islamic jurisprudence are in agreement that zina is to be punished by stoning if the offender is a free, adult, and married Muslim. But what kind of specific evidence is needed to legally carry out the hudud punishment? Firstly, a Muslim must confess to zina four separate times. But if the confessor retracts his words before or during the punishment, the punishment cannot be carried out and he/she is released. Secondly, four adult males who are held to be righteous and known to be pious Muslims must testify that they all simultaneously observed the couple engaged in unlawful sexual intercourse without any doubt or ambiguity. This implies that for the punishment to be executed, they must be able to say that they saw with their own eyes the private parts of those involved in the unlawful act meet. Thirdly, if the four witnesses take back their testimony before the punishment is carried out, then the punishment cannot proceed and the witnesses must be prosecuted for the crime of false accusation. Since these requirements are virtually impossible to be fulfilled, aside from a few rare and isolated instances, there is nearly no historical record of stoning for zina being implemented in the Islamic lands. Furthermore, drawing on the prophetic traditions, Muslim jurists have stipulated that hudud punishments should be avoided by the slightest 32 doubt or ambiguity with respect to the evidence. Therefore, it would not be wrong to state, as Jonathan Brown has remarked, “the harsher hudud punishments were meant to deter and to convey the gravity of offenses against God, rather than to be carried out.”
 * I see the The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World is a source. The book isn't available freely online but the section is. It says, among other things:
 * "In the studies conducted thus far, there is little documentation of actual stoning outside of ḥadīth accounts and a few rare and isolated court cases from the Ottoman period, such as a high profile stoning of an alleged Muslim adulteress and her Jewish lover in Istanbul’s Hippodrome in 1680. Aside from these rare accounts, most documentation of actual stonings may be found in the twentieth century to the present. Some are in the form of video recordings." and
 * "Regardless of legal prescriptions found in Islamic legal manuals, modern renditions of zinah law have been much more lax in terms of evidence requirements and have applied double standards with regard to gender through disproportionate punishment applied to women. This is best demonstrated in Pakistan, where rape victims are often imprisoned after admitting to illicit intercourse in the form of rape in accord with its 1979 Ḥudūd Ordinances. Victims bear an enormous burden of proof and are required to produce four male witnesses to the rape. On the contrary, gang rapes make it possible for multiple male witnesses to testify against the victim; rarely are the male offenders prosecuted. Zinah laws in Pakistan were only reformed in 2006 amid Islamist opposition, but have not ameliorated the blurring of consensual sex and nonconsensual rape.Muslim reformer Tariq Ramadan has called attention to these inequities in the application of the law and requested a moratorium on stoning, arguing that the punishment is unjust because it is disproportionately applied to women and the poor who are doubly victimized. Nonetheless, the subject of zinah remains a highly controversial issue, as it often masks deeper economic and political conflicts bubbling under the surface." Doug Weller  talk 18:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm the editor who wrote the sentence to which the OP objected, while attempting to summarize the source quoted above by Doug (the other cited source from the same author contains similar language). I recognize that the syntax is awkward, and this is the best I could do because the sentence was complex and difficult to compress. I don't see a NPOV issue with how the source was reflected, but I'm open to policy-based suggestions. Eperoton (talk) 02:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It is correct to say that this penalty was rarely applied before the 20th century. I think the problem is in the construction of the sentence: "apart from X, there is no historical record..." This sounds disingenuous, because you state "there is no historical record," but qualify it to say actually there are some historical records. It would be simpler, and avoid seeming disingenuous, to say "there are very few recorded examples..." I will change it now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jb212 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Changes to "inclusions of zina definition" section
I have tidied up this section and corrected some errors. In case the rationale is not clear:
 * 1. The first para was confusingly organized. It began by listing various modern concepts that fit the concept of zina, rather than just giving a straightforward definition. I have remedied this. It also repeatedly referred to offenders being Muslim, which suggested this was relevant. The religion of the offender is not relevant to the definition of the offense, it is only relevant to the punishment applied.
 * 2. The last paragraph contained several errors which I have corrected. To be muhsan a person must be free and an adult as well as Muslim, and also they do not need to be currently married, only to have been married at least once. The alternative punishment is for people who don't meet any one of those criteria: among people who are not muhsan, there is no distinction between slaves and free people, or between Muslims and non-Muslims. Lastly, the phrase "ma malakat aymanahum" is not relevant here. Ma malakat aymanahum is the term for a slave whose master is legally permitted to have sex with her. So it is not relevant to a discussion of the penalty applied to a slave guilty of zina. If a woman who is ma malakat aymanahum has sex with her master she has not committed zina. If she has sex with anyone else, she is punished the same as any other slave.
 * 3. Lastly, I provided a more appropriate reference. The article by on Ibn Hazm discussed the Zahiri school, a marginal school of law that is not representative. The book Sharia Incorporated focuses on Islamic law in the modern world, and the chapters are arranged by country. This section is primarily historical, and the law described here is not restricted to any one country. I have replaced this with Rudolph Peters's book which is the standard English-language textbook on Islamic criminal law.

Eperoton please don't reverse changes on spurious grounds
Can Eperoton please not reverse the changes I've made on spurious grounds. The note to Eperoton's reversal said that I had made "unsourced changes" which is not true. Most of the changes I made were just rewordings of the existing passage which was confusing or misleading. The revised passage refers to the existing source. The one place where I added something substantial, I provided a new source. And in one place I also removed an unsourced claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jb212 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Rewording of the second paragraph
I have revised the second paragraph (beginning "Zina belongs to the category...") to simplify it, correct mistakes and update references. The previous version was confusing and repetitive. The category of hudud offenses is those offenses that are *mentioned* in the Koran, it doesn't mean the Koran specifies the punishment. As this article goes on to say, one of the key punishments for zina is not specified in the Koran. Nor does the Koran prescribe a penalty for some of the other hudud offenses, such as drinking wine. Saying that the Koran disapproved of the promiscuity prevalent in Arabia, as the previous version did, is to offer a particular interpretation of the Koran and of 7th-century Arabian society which is not NPOV. It's also irrelevant to the key point here, which is the definition of hudud. I have removed the citations to the EI2 article. There's already a citation to Semerdjian's entry in the Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World, which is recent - there is no need to have a reference to another encyclopedia article that is outdated. I've added references to Rudolph Peters's book which is the standard textbook on Islamic criminal law in English. I removed the reference to de Long-Bas's book on Wahhabism as it's not relevant. Wahhabism is a marginal movement within Islam and didn't exist before the 18th century; Wahhabis played no role in developing the concept of zina.

Does User MrOllie have a reason for deleting a Hadith citation and reference ?
@MrOllie

I added this citation and reference

to the existing sentence

because the citation and reference were missing.

''' MrOllie, why have you deleted my citation and reference? Do you have a reason?'''

QamarBurtuqali (talk) 10:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)QamarBurtuqali


 * Yes, for exactly the same reasons explained to you elsewhere: Talk:Hijab. Note that adding back exactly the same content with spurious 'secondary' sources is not better, nor is logging out to edit war. MrOllie (talk) 12:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @MrOllie:
 * Kindly address my above question, directly.
 * Why do you object to my adding a missing citation to
 * an existing sentence in the Zina article? QamarBurtuqali (talk) 21:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

User MrOllie deleted a paragraph. With no evidence, he alleges that my secondary source is "spurious"
@MrOllie :

I added this paragraph:

User @MrOllie deleted the paragraph on 13 November 2023. In the history page he complains "More scripture quotes." Here in the Zina Talk Page, User @MrOllie simply alleges that my secondary citation is "spurious" with no evidence.

In reality, I provided a secondary source citation to Professor Jonathan A. C. Brown's well-known book Slavery and Islam. The book is available at the library of any major university. The Slavery and Islam book is sitting on my desk and thus it was easy to provide a page number (p. 70) for the citation.

In addition, User @MrOllie deleted the reference I added to the sentence,

I added a citation to an article "Sex, Sexuality and The Family" by Professor Khaleel Mohammed, appearing in The Blackwell Companion to The Quran edited by Andrew Rippin, Blackwell Publishing, 2006, p. 304. I added the citation because, previously, there was no secondary source citation for the existing sentence.

User @MrOllie can have no reason to delete this citation.

It appears to me that @MrOllie is engaging in non-constructive Edit Warring and making personal attacks.

QamarBurtuqali (talk) 22:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)QamarBurtuqali

Repeated re-insertion of disputed material
Calling on editor Bengali editor to discuss his disputed edit here. I'm not pleased at all with your response on the talk page. Bias alone does not make a source non-independent or unreliable per WP:BIASED. Articles about religion on Wikipedia aren't only presented from a religious POV. That wouldn't be in line with the neutral point of view policy. StephenMacky1 (talk) 13:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)