Large numbers?? Now, that’s really really really funny..
The Conditions for someone to be stoned to death:
(1) He or She should be married
(2) The should have committed intercouse (as the Qur’an puts it “Stuck together”) in front of **atleast 4 ** people. Remember, they should have seen them stuck together. If they saw them walking together to a room or a house, that’s not acceptable.
(3) The witnesses should be reliable - there are again conditions for that.
So, you see , the conditions for it are ** so difficult ** , it turns out that this punishment is hardly ever carried out. ** It is meant to be a deterrant so that such things do not become rampant and open in the society. ** For example, a country having this law cannot have the production of porn movies.
Also, the Holy Prophet (S) said that ** in the case where you do not have solid or convincing proof regarding a person accused of adultery, it is BETTER for the JUDGE to make the mistake of letting him free THAN to make the mistake of punishing him. ** (not the exact words).
Also, during the time of the Holy Prophet (S), there was a ** prostitute ** who was famous and well-known for her prostitution , but the Holy Prophet (S) had no proof against her. So, He (S) said that ** If I were to punish without proof, I would have punished her first. ** (not the exact words)
Well… guess what.. Western Media occasionally highlights some news of some woman (never male) to be about to be stoned to death but then I think the news gets buried deep down..
*“WheRe iS tHe JusTice oF PoliTical PowEr iF iT eXecutes tHe murdErer and jAils the plUndeRer, And thEn itSelf marcheS upon neighbOring laNds, kilLIng ThousanDs anD PillaGing tHe veRy Hills ?! ”
*
Read the article carefully..it says even though the british had banned sati…due to efforts by rajaram mohan roy and ghandhiji it was possible…the last occurence was reported in late 80’s…<<
So you do admit that it was practiced under the noses of Brahmins until banned initiated by British, do you wonder why it was not banned in Indian rulers time???
But hey…isn’t stoning to death practised yet…and that too in large numbers.<<..
Yes whats wrong with that??its an islamic punishment and we do’nt have any objection or eyebrow raise on it.
Ali_R the threads is too long. Can you post that question again? THanks.
mm10,
So you do admit that it was practiced under the noses of Brahmins until banned initiated by British, do you wonder why it was not banned in Indian rulers time???<<
Well, Sati was banned despite the reluctance of British rulers to get involved in what they called 'Native' customs.
A number of Progressive, WEstern Educated HIndus were behind it and Raja Ram Mohan Roy was in the forefront.
I don't know if he is a Brahmin. He most probably was.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Indian_Muslim:
Large numbers?? Now, that’s really really really funny..
The Conditions for someone to be stoned to death:
(1) He or She should be married
** So it doesn’t matter if he or she is unmarried…that’s quite a advanced culture**
(2) The should have committed intercouse (as the Qur’an puts it “Stuck together”) in front of **atleast 4 ** people. Remember, they should have seen them stuck together. If they saw them walking together to a room or a house, that’s not acceptable.
** agreed…but what were those 4 morons doing there at that time…isn’t that a sin too…and what if the couple turned out to be husband and wife…is there any punishment for those 4 morons…or is it justified cause they were trying to prevent a sin …
…and remember mia taali ek haath se nahi baajti…if both persons involved have no objection why should others have…if it’s a rape or something then i can understnad it..**
(3) The witnesses should be reliable - there are again conditions for that. reliable witness…who goes peeking in everyone’s house for a free entertainment…
[This message has been edited by devil123 (edited March 20, 2002).]
[This message has been edited by devil123 (edited March 20, 2002).]
stoning to death for adultery is NOT sanctioned in Islam.. well at least not from the Qur'an.. but then "traditional Muslims' follow their gods Bukahri and Muslim more than they follow Allah's Book.
Let's stick to the topic though... if we are to believe that an act was allowed in the first few generations and then disallowed later; AND we insist that the religion started from the 'first human' then it gives us different standards of 'morality' for different generations in the same religion.
I wish Andhra and the gang could quit their somersaults and annoying smilies and demand and answer on these lines from the 'pundits' of "mainstream Islam".
There is No Spoon
[This message has been edited by PakistaniAbroad (edited March 20, 2002).]
Anyways back to us,
I know and I have read that. It was a far more difficult question then you thought.
Coz now you explain me that this has not changed in past 1000 years!
First we all know Hinduism is no more Hinduism that used to be 60 years-70years-80-90-100..etc back.
Secondly Hinduism had and has a strong grip on traditions. So care to explain how many of those do what they read?
And that situation I mentioned happened to me while having dinner with my father's friend and then he did explain us that this is tradition in INDIA (at least in India)!
I know I'm off the topic but this one is important for me to be dicussed. So plz need a response. Thanks.
“WheRe iS tHe **JusTice oF **PoliTical **PowEr iF iT eXecutes tHe murdErer and jAils the plUndeRer, And thEn itSelf marcheS* upon neighb*Oring laNds, kilLIng **ThousanDs anD **PillaGing tHe veRy **Hills *?!** ”
*
No, it’s 100 whips I think. Again, you need 4 witnesses for that. And while whipping, the Qur’an is held in the armpit of the one whipping, so that he cannot raise his arm high . This way the whipping will be very light - again it is meant as a ** DETERRANT ** - the Punishment is not the real thing here.
Man, I’d thought you had understood what I meant.
**NO, NOONE IS ALLOWED TO PEAK INTO THEIR HOUSE LIKE THAT - OR ELSE THEY’D BE PUNISHED FOR THAT. ** (Peaking in someone’s House is again forbidden in Islam).
** This requirement of 4 WITNESSES is there so that * NOONE COMMITS IT OPENLY * and so that * IT DOES NOT BECOME ACCEPTABLE IN THE CULTURE *. Also, It will * DISCOURAGE * people from disclosing their adultery to others - and so other people * WILL NOT RECEIVE ENCOURAGEMENT * to commit this sin. **
Man, I had stated earlier that this ** punishment is meant to be a deterrant, NOT A LICENSE ** to punish as many people as you can. Please, visit the Islamic world (especially where you have ** STRICT ISLAMIC LAWS **), you’ll find that this ** punishment is EXTREMELY RARE AND UNHEARD OF. **
For example, I remember reading a book, (which should have been written 10 years ago), that only ** one person ** had been stoned to death in Saudi-Arabia in the ** last 20 years **. I don’t think I’ve heard of any stoning in Saudi-Arabia in the last few years (again I’m not always upto date with the news), so I think it’s safe to say ** there has NOT been a SINGLE case of STONING to death in Saudi Arabia in about the LAST 30 YEARS. **
As I said earlier, this punishment is meant to be a ** deterrant **.
For example, you ** CANNOT ** make *** Porn Videos ** * in such a society.
Also, according to ** the Holy Prophet (S) if anyone commits ADULTERY, he/she SHOULD NOT * bring it to the notice of the AUTHORITIES, * but should RATHER repent to Allah in secret. ** . I cant find the exact quotes, but if you insist I’m lying, I can look them up for you - I think I read them in the commentary on Surah An-Noor by Moulana Mawdudi.
Or the Hadith-Experts here might be able to quote it for you.
Again, as I said, the ** REQUIREMENTS for the punishment are almost IMPOSSIBLE. **
For example, ** many sins that we take for granted or we consider them to be light or petty, * but if a person is known to commit them *, then he is considered as an * UNRELIABLE WITNESS. * **
Now, you tell me ** how many people would actually commit adultery (penetration - “stuck together” ) in front of 4 reliable, pious people? **
The requirements of this punishment are almost ** impossible ** to be met.
I know the ** Western and Indian media ** love to highlight such news, even when a person may be just on trial for adultery, and they ** never forget to mention, ** (rather they mention it * very enthusiastically and passionately) * that if a person is proven guilty then he may be stoned to death.
Also, this punishment is for ** both MALES ** and females.
Devil, Now you tell me, why does the Indian and Western media always portray Islam in such a bad light and spread so many lies about Islam?
** Had Islam not been the true religion, they would have never attacked it in such a vicious manner and spread lies over lies about it. **
The choice is upto you, whether to believe Islam is an uncivilized religion or not. I cannot force you in that matter.
[This message has been edited by Indian_Muslim (edited March 20, 2002).]
The choice is upto you, whether to believe Islam is an uncivilized religion or not. I cannot force you in that matter. <<
Well, Indian_Muslim, the chocie is upto you really. Wheather you believe stoning people to death for adultery is civilized or not.
Also…
And while whipping, the Qur’an is held in the armpit of the one whipping, so that he cannot raise his arm high . This way the whipping will be very light <<
[quote]
Originally posted by Indian_Muslim:
** Again, as I said, the ** REQUIREMENTS for the punishment are almost IMPOSSIBLE. **
For example, ** many sins that we take for granted or we consider them to be light or petty, * but if a person is known to commit them , then he is considered as an * UNRELIABLE WITNESS. * *
Now, you tell me ** how many people would actually commit adultery (penetration - "stuck together" ) in front of 4 reliable, pious people? **
The requirements of this punishment are almost ** impossible ** to be met.
I know the ** Western and Indian media ** love to highlight such news, even when a person may be just on trial for adultery, and they ** never forget to mention, ** (rather they mention it * very enthusiastically and passionately) * that if a person is proven guilty then he may be stoned to death.
Also, this punishment is for ** both MALES ** and females.
Devil, Now you tell me, why does the Indian and Western media always portray Islam in such a bad light and spread so many lies about Islam?
** Had Islam not been the true religion, they would have never attacked it in such a vicious manner and spread lies over lies about it. **
The choice is upto you, whether to believe Islam is an uncivilized religion or not. I cannot force you in that matter.
[This message has been edited by Indian_Muslim (edited March 20, 2002).]**
[/quote]
Dear...i never said islam is a uncivilized religion ...every religion has its pros and cons....and i am not comparing religions...
and if you have faith in your religion then you shouldn't be afraid of the propoganda by the media...
[quote]
Originally posted by Andhra:
**Well, Indian_Muslim, the chocie is upto you really. Wheather you believe stoning people to death for adultery is civilized or not.
**
[/quote]
Geeeeeez.. For two married people, committing adultery in the absence of their spoused, ** and that too in front of 4 reliable, pious people ** (the penetration act) - what do you expect is the right punishment for such shameful and hardened sinners.
** Ask their spoused what they'd feel ! **
Btw, ** I do not know of any married person who would commit the penetration act in front of 4 pious people ** .
Get it buddy, the command here is ** Do NOT commit adultery PUBLICLY ** . Committing adultery publicly is going to destroy the entire moral fabric of the society.
** It is something which even the Westerners do not do, except for the porn stars and some other freaks. **
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Indian_Muslim:
** Geeeeeez.. For two married people, committing adultery in the absence of their spoused, ** and that too in front of 4 reliable, pious people ** (the penetration act) - what do you expect is the right punishment for such shameful and hardened sinners.
** First understand their problem dude…they are so mad in love that they didn’t notice that four reliable persons are watching them…those four reliable persons remind me of gandhiji’s three monkey…bura mat dekho …bura mat suno…bura mat bolo…and i’ll add for the fourth one …bura mat soocho…why don’t they follow that…**
** Ask their spoused what they’d feel ! **
well…their should be something wrong with their relationship…or why else their husband or wife commit such an act…
Divorce him or her…
So what you R saying is that when they(progressive hindus) learned westren education,they realized it was not right!
So its the external factor which showed them the righteous path , or else they would have allowed it.
[quote]
Originally posted by Andhra:
**Ali_R are you talking about 'Sarva Dharma Sama Bhav' which means 'All Religions/Ways Of Life/ Dharmas should be treated equally', a tenet of Hinduism?
I already gave references to that in this very thread.**
[/quote]
Andhra,
please read my post again and this time carefully. And then answer again.
Please.Thanks
“WheRe iS tHe **JusTice oF **PoliTical **PowEr iF iT eXecutes tHe murdErer and jAils the plUndeRer, And thEn itSelf marcheS* upon neighb*Oring laNds, kilLIng **ThousanDs anD **PillaGing tHe veRy **Hills *?!** ”
*
Ali_R!! Did you want a comment on this?
You said.........
If I'm not mistaking HINDUS aren't even allowed to sit on the same table where "non-hindus" are eating.<<
Pure Bullshit!!
I have several Muslim friends and we go to reataurants and I go to their weddings and homes regularly.
I am a Brahmin and I eat at their home.
Who cares?
I mean I am talking as far back as 1980s!!!
AS for the rest, Hindus are supposed to DO and NOT DO a lot of things!!!
Having dinner with Non-Hindus should be the last thing to bother their heads with!!!