Talk:Zina

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Merging

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Fornication 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: The main difference is that Namus is purely cultural thing and Zina is a concept discussed in Sharia and Fiqh. Cheers! TruthSpreaderreply 12:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Namus and zina 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sinners not punished according to shari'a law are punished severely after death 

message: [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)
thread_title:  TAMING THE BEAST 

message: 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)
replies: text: And I understand it covers rape as well. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Perhaps we need an etymology section? 86.21.101.131 (talk) 21:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Blogs, advocacy and other unreliable sources 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Unreliable websites sourced content 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rape 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lead rewrite 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Please help me to edit the section '1.1 Quran' 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Eperoton please don't reverse changes on spurious grounds 

message: @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
<I>Slavery and Islam</I>.  The book is available at the library of any major university.  
The <I>Slavery and Islam</I> 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
<I>The Blackwell Companion to The Quran</I> 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)
thread_title:  User MrOllie deleted a paragraph.  With no evidence, he alleges that my secondary source is "spurious" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Repeated re-insertion of disputed material