Woman forced to marry father-in-law

  • Thread starter Thread starter selvaraj
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think it might be better for one of my more knowledgeable brothers and sisters answer this since I can’t seem to get it right and I don’t want to miss lead anyone or give out flase information.

wa salam
 
In the Name of Allah,

In black and white: YES stoning till death is the prescribed punishment for adultery (NOT for fornication, in which case the punishment is 80 stripes).But there are certain requirements that HAVE to be fulfilled: -
  1. Four witnesses who have seen with their own eyes the ACT being committed.
  2. OR in the absence of that, atleast FOUR confessions by the person who has so committed adultery.
Now the point to remember here is that in the first instance, if there arent 4 witnesses, (if, for example only 3 people saw it and came forward), or if there are 4 witnesses but one or more of them back out, they are punished by giving them 100 stripes. So unless there are FOUR witnesses, they dont come up. And tell me who in their sane mind would commit such an act infront of FOUR people?

In the second instance, if the confession is taken back before the punishment… there is no stoning. Moreover, if the other person involved does NOT confess, nor are there witnesses to prove his/her presence, he/she is not punished at all. It is only the person who confesses who is punished.

Peace,

Urooj.

PS I dont see what this has to do with the topic though… which is pretty misleading to begin with.
 
40.png
Urooj:
In black and white: YES stoning till death is the prescribed punishment for adultery
(NOT for fornication, in which case the punishment is 80 stripes).
Click to expand...
islamically, there is no real distinction between the terms “fornication” and “adultery”, both are zinaa in arabic and the one who commits this act is a zaanee (for a male, zaaniyyah for female). the punishment for stoning is legislated for the zaanee who is no longer what is called in arabic a “muhsan” (f. muhsanah) which basically refers to someone who is either a virgin or someone who has never been married. if the person is no longer a virgin or has previously been married, then they are referred to as something else… i can’t recall what the arabic name is off the top of my head, but Allah willing, when i’m able i will post it up (in english it means “deflowered”). if the zaanee is still a muhsan, then his punishment is 80 lashes and exile for one year (as is narrated in saheeh al-bukhaaree). and Allah is more knowledgeable.
 
Assalam o Alaikum brother,

I have studied Islamic law brother, and it is ordained for the MARRIED zaanee/zaaniyaa to be stoned. If the zaanee/zaaniyaa are unmarried (or even if either one of them is unmarried) s/he is to be given 80 stripes.

Insha’Allah I’ll give you links if I can find any fatwa.

Wasalam,

Your sister in Islam,

Urooj.
 
Assalam o alaikum brother,

Sorry there’s something wrong… I cant edit my post… First off it was 100 lashes and exile for 1 year.

**The previously-married person who commits zina deserves to be stoned, whether he got married and divorced, or his wife passed away, or he is still married.

There is no difference between one who commits zina once and one who commits this sin repeatedly. Whoever has been previously married must be stoned. In the case of one who has not been previously married, the hadd punishment is one hundred lashes and exile for one year. **

I’m quoting from Here.

Wasalam,

Your sister in Islam,

Urooj.

PS Sorry for the misunderstanding caused.
 
40.png
Urooj:
PS I dont see what this has to do with the topic though… which is pretty misleading to begin with.
Click to expand...
Sorry, that was my fault I randomly posted something here that Munawar wrote because I liked it a lot. Then it snowballed from there .

wa salam
 
Urooj said:
**The previously-married person who commits zina deserves to be stoned, whether he got married and divorced, or his wife passed away, or he is still married. **
Click to expand...

that’s basically what i said in my post.

jazaakillahu khaira for the correction about the number of lashes. i knew it sounded a bit off… anyhow, here’s the tafseer for the verse stipulating the lashing for the virgin fornicators: here (it’s in arabic for those who can read).

btw, the arabic word i was looking for was thayyib (f. thayyibah).
 
Assalam o Alaikum,

Masha’Allah brother, I think I misunderstood you. I hope you can forgive me for the misunderstanding. Jazakum Allahu khairan for teaching me the new terminology. 🙂

Wasalam,

Your sister in Islam,

Urooj.
 
Thanks those who participated in this thread. Finally I found that, the verdict given by Local Muslim Council is correct, according to Mohammed(pubh?) who also got married his daughter-in-law.

In Christ,
selvaraj
 
40.png
selvaraj:
Thanks those who participated in this thread. Finally I found that, the verdict given by Local Muslim Council is correct, according to Mohammed(pubh?) who also got married his daughter-in-law.
Click to expand...
zainab bint jahsh wasn’t his daughter-in-law. zaid bin al-haarithah, her ex-husband, was not prophet muhammad’s son. so how could she have been his daughter-in-law???
 
40.png
r.gonzales:
zainab bint jahsh wasn’t his daughter-in-law. zaid bin al-haarithah, her ex-husband, was not prophet muhammad’s son. so how could she have been his daughter-in-law???
Click to expand...
Mr.Gonzales please be honest. He was his step-son.

In Christ,
selvaraj
 
No he had no blood relations, he was a slave that was owned by his family and the prophet (saw) gave him his freedom. The boy was so attached to the prophet (saw) that he decided to stay with the household and they kind of semi-adopted him.

wa salam
 
40.png
selvaraj:
Thanks those who participated in this thread. Finally I found that, the verdict given by Local Muslim Council is correct, according to Mohammed(pubh?) who also got married his daughter-in-law.

In Christ,
selvaraj
Click to expand...
Have you read what we said? How can you come to this conclusion?

wa salam
 
40.png
fatuma:
No he had no blood relations, he was a slave that was owned by his family and the prophet (saw) gave him his freedom. The boy was so attached to the prophet (saw) that he decided to stay with the household and they kind of semi-adopted him.

wa salam
Click to expand...
So he was a adopted son.

In Christ,
selvaraj
 
Yes. Someone far more knowledgeable then me should explain the concept of adoption in Islam.

wa salam
 
40.png
fatuma:
Yes. Someone far more knowledgeable then me should explain the concept of adoption in Islam.

wa salam
Click to expand...
Thanks Fatuma,
I am waiting for the answer.

In Christ,
selvaraj
 
40.png
selvaraj:
Mr.Gonzales please be honest. He was his step-son.
Click to expand...
there is no such concept of adoption in islam. there is only guardianship. prophet muhammad took zaid bin al-haarithah into his household and helped raise him. they have no other relation besides that. he was not zaid’s father and zaid was not his son. so there is nothing wrong with him marrying an ex-wife of zaid.

and that, selvaraj, is the honest truth. accept it or not, it’s up to you.
 
40.png
r.gonzales:
there is no such concept of adoption in islam. there is only guardianship. prophet muhammad took zaid bin al-haarithah into his household and helped raise him. they have no other relation besides that. he was not zaid’s father and zaid was not his son. so there is nothing wrong with him marrying an ex-wife of zaid.

and that, selvaraj, is the honest truth. accept it or not, it’s up to you.
Click to expand...
Any how, thanks for your reply.
In Christ,
selvaraj
 
You know, I was just going over the article again and was wondering what makes you think it is real and not a hoax? I mean some of the things people said, I’m thinking, “wait a minute, Muslims should know better, this doesn’t sound right”. Like where her brother says it is o.k. because it is in standing with Islamic law. There is no Islamic that says a father-in-law can marry his daughter-in-law as we (Muslims) have already stated. And the ones protesting didn’t even state this either, all they said was that a rape victim is guiltless (which in Islamic law is true). And the title makes no sense, “Muslims divided" how can we be divided if it says in the Quran that this man can’t marry that woman? It all sounds a little fishy to me. You shouldn’t believe everything you read.

wa salam
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top