Zina keeps getting tossed around as adultery or fornication + adultery. What we will see is that zina is akin to what we would today call homewrecking. Essentially it is female adultery of a wife with any man that is not her husband (and perhaps also to whom she is an MMA). Both are guilty when convicted. There is never just one criminal in a case of zina. To understand this concept, you have to realize the role and importance of men as qawwamoona. We will thus also establish who muhsanati are.
I thought this deserved it's own thread. It was in response to the post below, agreeing with it's premise.
in my opinion Zina only happens between a Married woman and a man (doesn't matter married or not). one part should be a married woman unless its not zina, for example a relations between a married man and a single woman is not Zina.
and where I get such condition? 
from reading these verses:
And those who accuse the independent females, then they do not bring forth four witnesses, you shall lash them with eighty lashes, and do not accept their testimony ever; and those are the wicked. * And those (men) who accuse their spouses, but they have no witnesses except for themselves, then the testimony of one of them is to be equivalent to that of four witnesses if it is sworn by God that he is being truthful. * And the fifth shall be the curse of God upon him if he is of the liars. * And the punishment will be averted from her if she bears witness four times by God that he is of the liars. * And the fifth shall be the curse of God upon her if he is speaking the truth. (24:4-9)
there is no mention of accusing men even from their spouses, and accusing an unmarried women (accuse only mentioned for Mohassenat not for Nessah). what do you think?
Exactly. There is no mention of accusing men, only:
a) people accusing a woman to whom they arent married (hence the label "muhsanati")
b) a man accusing his wife
There is no male equivalent of the word "muhsanat" and nothing of the sort is used in the chapter/law.
Muhsanat = a woman who is not your wife nor your MMA nor a slave of another. You are not her qawwam. Those who do not understand the importance of the role and the meaning of "qawwam" will never truly understand male-female relationships and categories of males and females used. A married woman can be considered "muhsanat" to all except her husband.
Furthermore, if a cheating wife successfully gets convicted of zina, she forfeits her esteem as "muhsanat." Her marriage is annulled and she may only marry an idolater or a "zani." I will adress the latter towards the end.
Notice how all women - when accused by other than their respective husband - are treated as muhsanati except if proven guilty. Unless 4 eye witnesses testify and it is established that the wife is guilty, she is not called zaniya, but muhsanat. This law has intense protection of a woman's honor: If accusers cant provide 4 eye-witnesses, they are lashed almost as much as an adulteress! It even protects wives who do cheat. Thus, even if a wife cheated and there were only 2 eye-witnesses, they wouldnt dare bring forth an accusation. If they were to do that, their accusation would be tossed out of an arbitration, they would be considered as "liars" in front of the god's law and flogged. The wives in that case, since they didnt get convicted - are not considered "zaniya."
Also notice how it is different when a husband accuses his wife - no mention of muhsanat, since he is her qawwam. There is also no punishment for a potential false accusation, no 4 witnesses and the wife can avert the punishment. Notice how there is no mention of a woman accusing her husband and the husband averting the punishment through a fifth oath.
It seems an MMA cannot be accused of zina. See how 4:25 mentions half the punishment when MMA commits fahisha, but makes no mention of zina. MMA is also not mentioned in the zina verses of chapter 24.
So who is a "zanee?" Any man - whether married or not - who sleeps with another man's wife - granted it has been proven with 4 witnesses. Thus, he is the convicted accomplice of the convicted, cheating, formally-married wife. Thus he can only marry the previously cheating woman whom he slept with, a different adulteress or an idolatress. Same goes for the zaniya but with the male equivalents. It is interesting that the god said this - and along with "that has been forbidden/made inviolable for the mumineen." My concluion from this is that zanee/zaniya cannot be regarded as mumineen, furthermore considering that mumineen arent allowed to marry mushrikati to begin with.
This leads to another interesting interpretation - although i'm not sure it's valid - by Muhammad Asad:
The term mushrik (fem. mushrikah), which normally signifies a person who associates in his or her mind all manner of imaginary deities or forces with God, or who believes that any created being has a share in His qualities or powers, is here evidently used in the widest metaphorical sense of this term, denoting one who accords to his or her desires a supremacy which is due to God alone, and thus blasphemes against the principles of ethics and morality enjoined by Him. The particle aw (lit., "or") which connects the word mushrikah with the preceding word zaniyah (''adulteress") has in this context - as well as in the next clause, where both these terms appear in their masculine form - an amplifying, explanatory value equivalent to the expression "in other words" or "that is"...
To summarize the terms:
Zina = female adultery and male homewrecking
Zaniya = wife who is successfully convicted of adultery - i.e. convicted adulteress
Zanee = accomplice of convicted adulteress - i.e. convicted male homewreckerTo simplify, since the husband is qawwam and head of the household, and zina could be seen as an offense, in part, against the husband, we could also say:
Zina = homewrecking
Zaniya = female homewrecker
Zanee = male homewreckerInherently, zina has nothing to do with fornication, unless a single, non-qawwam man sleeps with a married woman (and perhaps also with another man's MMA). Zina also inherently has nothing to do with prostitution, unless a wife prostitutes herself or pays for sex. Zina also inherently has nothing to do with a married man who sleeps with another woman unless that woman is married (or perhaps is an MMA).
Aside from the MMA issue which I am not sure about, this analysis makes a lot of sense and doesnt resort to filling in supposed gaps and changing situations such as talking about accusing husbands of sleeping with anyone else, flip-flopping between fornication and adultery, as well as flip-flopping on and not understanding the terms "zanee" and "zaniya" and that they always refer to the same people.
This whole law is to:
a) Punish a homewrecking woman and man and protect the honor of the family, including children that the former husband and homewrecking wife have.
b) Prevent out-of-wedlock children that may result from a wife's adultery, especially if there is no contraception around. That child, unless she re-marries, will be a "yatam"/fatherless orphan. In an age without contraception, this means causing a child to be fatherless and having his/her mother marry an idolatress or homewrecker and being raised by such. A dignified believer would not want a leeching cheater anyway.
c) Respect the honor of the husband/qawwam who paid a dowry and provides and pays for protection and maintenance of his respective wife - and harshly punishes a wife's betrayal and the man who sleeps with her although he isn't a qawwam to her.
d) Protect a faithful wife and her husband and children from malicious slanderers who would wreck a home and ruin her and her family's lives based on lies. See 24:23 and how it only mentions muhsanati. No man wants anybody to insult and scare him by baselessly accusing his wife of cheating.
e) Protect a faithful wife from baseless accusations from a husband they may want to ruin her life and get rid of her without a waiting period.
Breaking up a family, ruining/negatively impacting children's lives, dishonoring one's qawwam for pure lust and spreading lies to ruin a family... Zina and baseless accusations of zina are heinous and disgusting crimes.
Now we know why not only the punishment for zina (always denotes conviction) is so harsh, but also why the punishment of false accusations and not supplying enough eye-witnesses is almost as harsh, and, moreover, why it is easier to get convicted of slander than zina.
And we understand the following verse a lot better now:
24:23 Those who accuse the innocent/inattentive, believing muhsanati, they will be cursed in this world/the present and the hereafter/the end, and they will have a painful retribution!
24:24 On the day when their tongues, and their hands, and their feet will bear witness against them for what they used to do!
24:25 On that day, the god will reimburse them their due/obligation in full, and they will know that the god is the obvious truth!
24:26 (The wicked women are for the wicked men, and the wicked men are for the wicked women.) The good women are for the good men, and the good men are for the good women. These people are innocent from what statements have been made, and for them is forgiveness and a generous provision.
I now also better understand the term "muhsanatii" after having written this and would translate it as "protected women."
Slander in general is no joke! Especially when one is accusing someone of a heinous crime. Some forum members and gossipers all over this world should take note.
Knowing this now, it is clear that the flogging is well-deserved. No wonder it perplexed many who didnt see it as fair for fornicators, and were apologetic in claiming that the "jelda" punishment was only "light flogging" and more for public shaming. I agree that public shaming is obviously involved. We can also now understand the loss of "mumin" status for homewreckers.
