Marriage eligibility

[Joseph Islam]

Dear brother Abdul Samad / Optimist,

Wa alaikum assalam

Please see my responses to your points in blue italics:

Let us forget about Parwez and his explanations.  Parwez can not be the final word in understandng of the Quran.  He is just a human being and he can go wrong.

I wholeheartedly agree, and with respect dear brother, I find such a statement from you a breath of fresh air. It is truly appreciated.

1. If it is a direction not to marry an adulterer or adulteress what will happen if a married man or woman found guilty of adultery? whether the existing marriage will be nullified due to the directive in 24:3, i.e, whether it is mandatory for the partner to seek divorce from the one found guilty of adultery??

Separate verses have been devoted for spouses (24:6ff) in particular with the specific stipulation of what level of proof is required. There is no elucidation given to the level of punishment which infers the punishment stipulated in 24:2, but furthermore, there is no elucidation that in a pre-existing contract of marriage, a marriage is automatically nullified. There is no mention of this in the Quran. Such a serious action with consequences to wider family would arguably demand an explicit instruction especially when specific verses are devoted to marriage institutions and not one to be left to 'implicit' deductions.

Therefore arguably, one cannot infer from the directives of 24:3 that a pre-existing contract of marriage has to be nullified. Unless of course, this was agreed to by the parties before the marriage contract was enforced. In other words, if it was clearly stipulated in the marriage contract (meethaqan galezaan) that an act of adultery by either party would be acceptable grounds for divorce, then this would be enforceable.

2. If Muslims are prophibited to marry an adulteror or adulteress convicted for adultery, it would mean that this is an additional punishment  for them over and above 100 lashes mentioned in 24:2.  In other words, a lifetime punishment for them prohibiting them to get married except those similiary found guilty and a mushriq.   How justified this understanding as per verse 24:2? 

With an attempt at mutual understanding, let us be clear that 'Zina' is no small matter. The Quran even goes so far as to say that believers should not even come close to steps that lead to 'zina'.

017:032
“And do not even go near to (taqrabu) zina (fornication / adultery)! Indeed, it is a gross obscenity / immorality (fahishatan) and an evil (wasaa) path / way”

One can also argue that the 'zina' in verse 24:3 is for the persistent transgressor who is not only promiscuous but is a blight to the wider righteous community. Where else would one find four witnesses to illicit sexual liaisons? In other words, if a transgression did take place, where would one find four witnesses to the act? Therefore, if God makes such a sin manifest to the public with appropriate witnesses, this will most likely be a serial transgressor or one with persistent lewd behaviour causing ‘fitna’ in the land.

The additional punishment in my humble view is justified in this context.

3. There is an element of forgiveness clearly mentioned in chapter 25:68-71,  where Allah promises forgiveness to those involved in adultery, if there is true repentance as tested by a changed life in conduct, and the verse states this will transform the life of the repentant from evil to good.   This being the fact, how come a life-time punishment prohibiting to get married (except with those similarly found guilty and mushriq) could be attracted against those who found guilty of adultery?

I agree, please see my response to Nura about forgiveness. With regards a life-time punishment, please see my response to you in the previous answer (2) above and the context I have shared.

I hope this helps / clarifies, God willing.
Joseph.

[optimist]

However, if we read 'nikaah' as 'sexual intercourse' (literally) in verse 24:3 in an isolated sense as it seems to have been asserted earlier in this thread, then the following verse would seem to sanction illicit coitus. This would be an unacceptable inference.

"The fornicator (zani) shall not 'have sexual intercourse' with any but a fornicatress or idolatress (mushrikatan)".

Hence this is why I completely reject the notion of reading this passage in an isolated sense.

Thank you for all your comments.   This will be my final post in this thread.   I believe there is nothing in verse 24:3 to suggest to give sanction for illicit coitus assuming we take the meaning 'sexual intercourse'.  The problem is with translation.   Based on the interpretation of the verse you have provided above,  if we replace 'sexual intercourse' with marriage, it would mean that Allah is providing saction to a fornicator to MARRY a fornicatress or idolatress (mushrikatan)!!!  The question of giving sanction or direction to fornicator to marry none except fornicatress or idolatress does not arise at all.  The accurate translation (assuming we provide meaning "marriage") would be, "The adulterer marries not but an adulteress or a Mushrikah".  This is what the Arabic states.  Similarly, the accurate translation if we give the other meaning, it would be "the adulterer couples with none other than an adulteress or a Mushrikah" (Mohamed Asad translation and it seems to me more appropriate here).  It is just a statement of fact that is mentioned in this statement of Allah and no confusion is created here.

Assalamu alaikum

Regards,
Optimist

[Joseph Islam]

It is just a statement of fact that is mentioned in this statement of Allah...

Dear brother Abdul Samad / Optimist,

Wa alaikum assalam

I would find such a statement of fact as you imply a superfluous comment in the context of the verses. I have respectfully cited my evidence and the reasons why this verse cannot be taken in an isolated sense and the context I feel it is to be best understood.

I trust that in at least some comments of mine you saw common ground as I have (as shared with Nura) found in yours.

With respect,
Joseph.

[Nura]

Dear brother optimist,

a marriage of a fornicator with a fornicatress or a mushrik does not imply that the marriage is doomed, both the fornicators can repent and marry each other, don't you think that is fair? if we are to take the understanding that you are providing then how can you explain this statement found in other parts of the quran where Allaah has said  that chaste and pure women are for chaste and pure men.

a believer who has fornicated can marry another fornicator and both can repent and receive Allah's forgiveness. I agree with brother Joseph about pre-existing marriages not being anulled or divorced, because Allah exempted pre-existing marriages between a step-son and step-mother, from becoming void, after the verse prohibiting it was revealed.

Zina should not be taken lightly and Allah does not take it lightly.

Thank you..

[Nura]

Dear brother Joseph,

the verses around the verse that we are discussing state that we are to punish a fornicator with 100 lashes, if the fornicator repents before this punishment is carried out, should we still flog the fornicator/fornicatress? Allah asks us to show mercy but what If this softening of our hearts toward the fornicator results in more fornicating from him/her?

what are your views?

thanks...

[Joseph Islam]

Dear Nura,

As-salam alaykum.

This is a very good question and admittedly a difficult question to answer as it is one of subjectivity which can instill (as you have rightly inferred) a blasé attitude towards such a crime.

Furthermore and indeed, how can one ever know that the perpetrator has truly repented, other than by another subjective assessment of their long term conduct?

In my humble view, there is a big difference between a transgression done in ignorance when one is ambivalent towards God's religion as an immature youngster and one say, committed by a sound mature believing individual in the midst of a responsible marriage.

Thus one can understand how some ancients may have sought to distinguish between fornication and adultery and imposed stricter punishments for the latter given their own particular societal circumstances, even though they had no explicit 'religious' prescription. Maybe these were punishments (such as stoning) which were invoked to deal with particular / specific societal degradation which later became argued as 'religious'.

One could argue that if a sin has never come to light and an individual has sought sincere forgiveness and truly amended their ways (long term), then there is room to argue that punishment 'may' be averted.  The verses regarding forgiveness already cited would be appropriate here as evidence.

However, this does not open the doors to use 'repentance' as an excuse each time a transgression takes place! This is not a light matter as you can well appreciate.

Within a marriage, the matter is far more serious and one can infer this by the relative modest degree of testimony that is deemed sufficient to find another guilty of transgression (24:6). It is imperative to remember that in a marriage, one is under a sacred contract / solemn covenant and such a transgression is arguably a very serious crime which can affect the fabric of the family structure in toto. Hence all a spouse has to do is to bear witness and the only aversion from proven guilt is to invoke the curse of God if they are lying (24:7). Very serious indeed.

Admittedly, there is much room for debate on this particular question given the parameters under discussion. It would be for a believing society to put this matter to consultation as ultimately it would be them that will decide and exact a punishment if need be.

Hence, I trust that you will thus allow me to remain relatively non-committal on this very good question.

Regards,
Joseph.

[Nura]

salam All,

I would just like to add one thing, in the ayat that we are discussing,

Alzzanee la yankihu illa zaniyatan aw mushrikatan waalzzaniyatu la yankihuha illa zanin aw mushrikun wahurrima thalika AAala almu/mineena

if we read carefully we see that, Allah uses the words 'Alzzanee', 'zaniyatan' 'walzzaniyatu' and 'zanin' to refer to fornicators (male and female). What is interesting to note, is that Allah uses the words 'yankihu' and 'yankihuha' to refer to the kind of relationship between them ( fornicators and unbelievers/ fonicators with other fornicators), and the words 'yankihu' and 'yankihuha' and the word 'nikah' come from the same root word and both these words refer to marriage not zina ( difference between marriage and zina is clearly made).

There is no doubt that Allah is talking about marriage of fornicators here, not merely stating the fact that a fornicator fornicates with a fornicatress or an unbeliever (mushrik), that is just a given, one cannot fornicate alone, the other person with home he/she fornicates also becomes a fornicator, and unbelievers really do not care about all these.

Thank You..

[Joseph Islam]

and both these words refer to marriage not zina (difference between marriage and zina is clearly made).

I respectfully agree.

not merely stating the fact that a fornicator fornicates with a fornicatress or an unbeliever (mushrik), that is just a given, one cannot fornicate alone, the other person with home he/she fornicates also becomes a fornicator, and unbelievers really do not care about all these.

I respectfully agree.

Thanks for sharing.