Question
I understand that the Qur’an has prohibited fornication. Allah has put us on this earth for a test and we are being tested if we adhere to the directives of Allah and the last Messenger of Allah. While adhering to this directive, the following questions still wonder the mind as to WHY.
-
If a man and a woman agree to indulge in sexual relation, how can this be against the norm of a society and a crime? And especially if the women does not require any rights through a marriage contract. How can both parties be aggressors? Both the parties are not hurting each other or a society. If the two live together without a marriage contract, what are the side effects to it? I just don’t understand your explanation.
-
Why is the punishment of fornication so severe in the Hereafter (25:68-69) as compared to adultery? It seems that adultery is more of a severe crime than fornication where in the case of adultery an individual is affected. But in the case of fornication, none of the individuals are affected. Why was not adultery part of the category of Shirk, Murder and fornication in 25:68-69. Or if I understand it correctly, punishment for fornication in these verses means to imply Zina by one of two married couples and not unmarried people.
-
Why is/was sexual relation allowed with slave girls as compared to fornication prohibited in the Quran. Do you agree that this concept of fornication in the western countries is so deep rooted within the society just as slavery was centuries ago during the establishment of Islam. It is a common norm to have sexual relation out of wedlock in the western countries. By looking from this perspective that it is so deep rooted, why is the Quran so swift in prohibiting and punishing fornication as compared to sexual relation with slaves in this case?
-
Would you please clarify your answer where you mention under the following,
-
You mention in one of your writings that fornication is an extra-ordinary crime
-
You mention under point 7 in another response that “The consequence of the latter of the two is restricted to the two individuals involved in it; while the former, if allowed to flourish, results in the moral degeneration of the society.”
Fornicator to be lashed 100 lashed as compared to prostitutions to death. Why a lesser of a punishment in this world for fornication as compared to the Hereafter and vice versa. Please clarify your statement in 4b (lesser of a crime) as compared to 4a (extra-ordinary crime).
Thank you in advance for your response. I will be anxiously waiting for your reply.
Answer
Before we take up your specific questions, I would first like you to appreciate a few aspects about the nature of human life on earth.
We all know that human life, from the perspective of each individual, goes through various stages of interdependence, which necessitate the family structure, at a micro level, and the society, at a macro level. Elaborating on this point, I have written in one of my earlier responses:
The basic principle on which Islam builds its social structure is that a man – for his healthy and natural physical, mental, emotional and psychological development – needs a family. At the time of his birth he needs a mother (or someone in place of a mother) to look after him. At that time, if his needs are ignored, his very existence can so easily be jeopardized. Although at this stage, the father is playing an important role in the background, but in his subsequent years, the role of the father becomes more and more prominent with that of the mother. Then his brothers and sisters, contribute to his psychological and emotional development as well. As he grows older, his society, his tribe, his neighborhood and his family teach him the lessons, which have a great significance in shaping his personality. Some years later, this child grows strong and young. These are the few years of his life during which he believes that he is independent enough to live his life without sharing and even without asking others to share with him. These are the years in which – due to his emotional and physical independence – he is sometimes prone to adopt an attitude of taking all the pleasure that life has to offer without accepting the responsibilities that should naturally entail these privileges (or pleasures). But soon after this phase is over, the mental, physical and emotional weaknesses start creeping in once again and once again, as was the case in the first stage, he becomes emotionally dependent on others. Not before long, he reaches the threshold of old age. Now once again, besides his emotional dependence he also becomes physically dependent on others. Sometimes, he also reaches a stage where his very existence once again becomes dependent on the care and attention of others.
Islam wants to shape the society in a way that would take care of the needs of the complete man and not just a part of his life. Islam, therefore, builds the society in such a way that a family is formed, relationships are created and, thus, not only the needs of a young man are satisfied but also those of the infants and the old. Islam, therefore, builds the society on the institution of marriage – an institution, which is primarily based on firm commitment, love, trust and chastity.
Thus, recognizing this basic nature of human life on earth, Islam builds the social fabric on two basic foundations: Firstly, that sexual relations should be restricted to the institution of marriage, thereby, inducing the grounds for the creation of the family; and secondly, to protect the family, certain relations should be considered prohibited for marriage.
Keeping the foregoing explanation in perspective, it is clear that allowing free-sexual interaction between sexes would not only completely destabilize the family structure and, consequently, the society, but it would also result in the desecration of the sacred womb and, consequently, unsanctify all human relations.
Furthermore, it should be kept in mind that individual piety, which is the ultimate basis of eternal success in the hereafter is dependent primarily upon man’s adherence to all the moral values that God has embedded in him, since his inception. One of these values is that of hayaa (generally translated as ‘modesty’, or the ‘feeling of shame’). In its moral form, this feeling of shame hinders man from all forms of improper behavior, even when no one is around to see or report his behavior to anyone else. While, from the perspective of the physical world, it is the same feeling of shame that stops man from nakedness and other forms of immodest behavior.
The foregoing provides the reason why Islam holds fornication, not only to be a grave spiritual crime – as it is clearly against one of the basic moral values of man – but also a social crime – as it attacks the very foundation of the society. Fornication, therefore, is punishable by flogging in public, from a worldly perspective and is one of the few crimes, others include murder and ascribing equals to God, about which the Qur’an has warned of eternal punishment in the hereafter1.
Keeping the foregoing explanation in perspective, let us now turn to your specific questions/comments:
You write:
If a man and a woman agree to indulge in sexual relation, how can this be against the norm of a society and a crime?
We know that it is not merely the mutual consent of the parties to a sexual interaction, which makes that interaction morally acceptable. Sexual interaction that is considered within the moral limits consists only of those interactions which are recognized and licensed by the society and in which the man and the woman express their intention to permanently fulfill all the responsibilities arising out of that interaction.
To further understand this phenomenon, take the case of gambling, where even though all parties voluntarily consent to put their interests at stake and allow the winner to take all, yet the transaction is not considered to be within the moral limits allowed by the Almighty. Clearly, the primary issue in gambling is not the mutual consent of the parties, but the fact that in such an arrangement, one or a few people are allowed to take possession of the wealth of others, without having earned the right to such possession.
You write:
And especially if the women does not require any rights through a marriage contract.
Because of the stated significance of chastity and sanctity of the womb, it is immaterial whether a party voluntarily consents to forgo its rights or not. As stated earlier, fornication is an act that attacks the very roots of the social fabric and, therefore, it cannot be allowed to prevail.
You write:
How can both parties be aggressors? Both the parties are not hurting each other or a society.
I hope to have answered this question in my earlier explanation.
You write:
If the two live together without a marriage contract, what are the side effects to it?
If both the parties live together with the commitment and the declaration of the intention that they shall do their best to permanently fulfill their respective responsibilities arising out of living together, then this is, in fact, marriage, even though it may not be recognized as marriage by the local law. Nevertheless, in the absence of any such commitment and declaration of such intention, the whole arrangement would only be a means of gratifying one’s sexual desires, without assuming the responsibilities arising out of it.
As for the side effects of allowing such an arrangement to prevail in the society, I have already attempted to explain these in the preceding part of my response.
You write:
Why is the punishment of fornication so severe in the Hereafter (25:68-69) as compared to adultery? It seems that adultery is more of a severe crime than fornication where in the case of adultery an individual is affected. But in the case of fornication, none of the individuals are affected. Why was not adultery part of the category of Shirk, Murder and fornication in 25:68-69. Or if I understand it correctly, punishment for fornication in these verses means to imply Zina by one of two married couples and not unmarried people.
Fornication and adultery are both included in the Arabic word ‘Zina’. Belonging primarily to the same category of crimes, entailing the same social implications and having the same effects on the spiritual personality of a human being, both, in principle, have been given the same status by the Qur’an. Nevertheless, it is clear that the implementation of punishment in the hereafter in each individual case shall take into consideration the conditions, environment and the circumstances specific to that individual. One person may deserve to be dealt with more leniently due to his specific circumstances, environment and conditions, for having committed a crime, while another may deserve to be dealt with more severely for having committed the same crime. The hereafter, we must remember, would be a place of the ultimate manifestation of God’s absolute justice.
You write:
Why is/was sexual relation allowed with slave girls as compared to fornication prohibited in the Quran. Do you agree that this concept of fornication in the western countries is so deep rooted within the society just as slavery was centuries ago during the establishment of Islam. It is a common norm to have sexual relation out of wedlock in the western countries. By looking from this perspective that it is so deep rooted, why is the Quran so swift in prohibiting and punishing fornication as compared to sexual relation with slaves in this case?
Sexual interaction with slave girls was an accepted social norm of the Arab society in which the Qur’an was revealed. The Qur’an accepted this social norm for as long as the institution of slavery existed.
Sexual interaction with slave girls cannot be compared to casual sexual interaction out of wedlock. We know that casual sexual interaction out of wedlock has always been considered an immoral act, which may sometimes be tolerated and borne by the society, but is never licensed and promoted.
I do, however, acknowledge that one of the primary causes of avoidance of formal marriage in the Western societies is, in fact, some of the marriage and divorce laws that discourage people to enter into formal marriage contracts. I also advocate that these laws should be amended sufficiently to promote the sacred institution of marriage once again. I am also of the opinion that if a man and a woman live together with the firm and declared commitment and intention of permanently fulfilling their mutual responsibilities, even without a formal marriage contract, and restrict their sexual interaction to each other, then, under the present socio-legal framework of the Western societies, this cannot always be termed or considered as a case of fornication. Nevertheless, even in the Western societies, casual sexual interactions may be tolerated, but it should not be considered as an acceptable norm that deserves to be promoted.
You write:
Fornicator to be lashed 100 lashed as compared to prostitutions to death. Why a lesser of a punishment in this world for fornication as compared to the Hereafter and vice versa. Please clarify your statement in 4b (lesser of a crime) as compared to 4a (extra-ordinary crime).
If we acknowledge that fornication is a grave crime, it would clearly follow that all institutions that promote the spread of this crime in the society are involved in an even graver crime. To understand this phenomenon, compare the position of those who take drugs with those who promote the taking of drugs in the society. It is obvious that a person who takes drugs is also involved in a serious wrong doing, yet the crime of the drug peddlers and any individuals or institutions that promote the use of harmful drugs in the society is much graver.
I hope this helps.
Fond regards,
Moiz Amjad
October 20, 2003
- Whereas murder may seem to be a much graver crime than fornication, yet a closer analysis would reveal otherwise. In contrast to murder, where an individual is deprived of his life, allowing fornication to exist and flourish has the potential of depriving the whole society of the very basis of its existence. Thus, fornication has far more outreaching consequences, as compared to murder. [↩]