Peace IAMOP
QuoteGod designed our instincts to feel resent for the 3rd party. So if Bob gets off scot-free, there is resent which God himself placed there for a reason.
I think that in most cases this will be the case (anger at third party). But is it a justified hatred? It depends.
QuoteCase A: Sex outside of officially recognised relationship is permissible
Wife - GUILTY OF ZINA
Bob - NOT GUILTY
Case B: Sex ONLY within official relationships permitted
Wife - GUILTY OF ZINA (adultery)
Bob - GUILTY OF ZINA by default (fornication)
In your examples the only difference between cases A and B is that in a society that practices B, the odds of someone deceiving a third party into thinking that they are not in a relationship is significantly less than that of a society that practices A. For this reason I do agree that it could be said that in society B, there will be less resent towards Bob for they know by default that he was sufficiently careful because of the low odds of deception by the wife in society B. But this is not to say that he is indisputably innocent. Hypothetically you could argue that for various reasons, Bob was in fact under the impression that the wife may in fact be married. Odds of this are low but it is not impossible to render it indisputable.
Important to note is that in the conditions of society A you could have someone who is sufficiently careful also. For example someone might ask around or check in some kind of database whether wife x is a Mrs or Miss or Ms. In court Bob might then say I got in touch with the registry offices and they told me she was single. Other pre-cautions could also fall into place before engaging in any kind of sexual activity which would easily render Bob in society A as sufficiently cautious.
Thus whilst the conditions in society B are more strict thus lowering the possibility of deception, this does not entail that the conditions in society A are wrong. For example some countries will have harsher punishments for stealing than others and thus they will lower their odds of stealing in their respective country. But this does not render their punishments right. Some punishments may be unreasonably harsh.
QuoteYou can take "marriage" to mean any quranically legitimate relationship.
From my understanding that is not how it is. There are specific verses that place certain requirements before one can approach their MMA for nikah. Thus a relationship with MMA and zawj are two different arrangement that are both Quranically legitimate (
if this understanding of MMA is correct) thus marriage cannot mean any Quranically legitimate relationship.
QuoteOn judgement day it is rather plain that God who designed man to feel hurt by both parties in zina will thusly abase both participants.
I disagree with this. If I understand you correctly your view is that the level of caution exercised in society A is too low and that in society B, by default it is sufficient to render the third party not guilty. I don't believe that this warrants and outright ban on sex before marriage. If there is a wife that will cheat with someone, then the wife is at fault and the husband who married such a wife was unlucky or unwise in his choice of wife. It may even be argued that if such a wife exists, it may be better that the disease in her heart is exposed. It may also be argued that sex before marriage is beneficial in the sense that it would better help someone judge to whom they should commit to for the rest of their live with regards to starting a family and other marriage like goals.
God will judge whether the likes of Bob in societies A or B was cautious enough before engaging in sex with their MMA. We cannot assume that Bob was sufficiently cautious in society B or A and I think the imposition of the conditions in society B are restrictive of the rights and freedom of individuals and they potentially prohibit a beneficial thing for reasons that are not good enough.
QuoteZina is a two party crime and the quranic commandment is that BOTH parties are punished.
Consider the following:
1) We punish the person who was married and the third party who was not married
2) We punish the person who was married and the third party who was married to them
If we must do 1 (based on there needing to be two to commit the deed thus two to be punished), then surely we must also do 2 for it is the same. I am not sure what you mean by stalemate but if we consider the third party in two as legally married simply for the reason that he was unaware that there was a husband, then this is the same reason Bob would give in 1) that he had lawful sex for he did not know there was a husband. Thus there is no core underlying difference if I understand you correctly. If I have got this wrong please correct me on this.
I think for a person to be unaware that there is a husband in the picture is sufficient to render them as not guilty of any fahisha or zina. Even if we say that Bob was aware that the wife was married but he himself was not married, then I think this constitutes fahisha for Bob and zina for the wife because Bob is not married whereas the wife is and I think there is a clear difference between the level of wrong on Bob's side if he was in fact married and aware as opposed to not married and aware.
It could be argued that according to the Quran, you only punish both parties for zina, when they have both committed zina. As in the two who committed the act were both Married to someone else.
24:2 The adulteress and the adulterer, you shall lash each of them with one hundred lashes, and do not let any pity overtake you regarding the system of God if you believe in God and the Last Day. And let a group of the believers witness their punishment.
24:3 The adulterer will only marry an adulteress or she who is a polytheist. And the adulteress, she will only be married to an adulterer or he who is a polytheist. And such has been made forbidden for the believers
From these verses I do not see that it is necessarily the case that in the act, both should be considered as committing zina. In the case of Bob, you cannot punish an adultrer when there is not one to be found.
