Heh, not true. Explain to me then why women are to burried up to their chest while men are to be burried only upto their waist. Besides, a person's face is usually covered and hands are tied. How the hell would you know he is repenting for his sins while being stoned? His cries would be taken as being in pain.
God, please if you exist, end this B.S.!
I am not sure what the protocols of punishment are and who created these differences. They should not be buried, however they should be wrapped in a cloth. That is what Bukhari and Muslim mention in their books
First she jumped the gun without reading the chain of our conversation and now you are just doing the same :) Anyway I have posted the chain - Sawal Gandum , jawab chaNNa :)
btw did you really read what she wrote ? She stated that Shaa'bis and Khulfa-e-rashdeen ( companions and successors of Hazrat Muhammad PBUH) were so power hungry that they have amendments the existed laws to show their supremacy ..
In other words - Islam laws were made by some Megalomaniac people as per their own will and wish :)
Well that's a quite big allegation , my mate :)
I won't lie. That's exactly what I meant but you made it sound more offensive than it was meant to be.
Totally depends on the crime. I don't believe dismemberment should be a punishment for ANY crime.
What if the conditions to fulfill maximum punishment were extremely hard to reach? Would this law be a suitable deterrent? If acceptable causes for the crime are determined that lower its intensity would it not be sufficiently suiting?
How about those criminal thieves who ransom and use weapons to intimidate and take without shame? Would it not hinder a thief from stealing again?
also, someone asked this question to Mufti Mehmood (a great scholar and father of Fazlur Rehman) and he said that in reality, stoning (because its a slow death) gives the accused a chance, to deny the charges in the middle of the punishment, and its the responsibility of Qazi to halt the stoning right away (keep in mind that in Prophet's days, most of the stoning took place out of self-confessions of the adulterer). An instant way of killing the accused would not give him/her that chance.
Of course, Fazlur Rehman and his father can be expected to rise to any level of idiocy.
What if the conditions to fulfill maximum punishment were extremely hard to reach? Would this law be a suitable deterrent? If acceptable causes for the crime are determined that lower its intensity would it not be sufficiently suiting?
How about those criminal thieves who ransom and use weapons to intimidate and take without shame? Would it not hinder a thief from stealing again?
If his brain still works, a thug like that will hire a hitman to do his job. Cutting his hands won't prove to be a good deterrent. As a matter of fact, people will learn to be better criminals. Unless there's a way to make them braindead, I don't think it's going to work. Perhaps a more psychological solution can be considered.
Glad to see you agree that Stoning was also prescribed it Gospel and Torah.
Now it's easy to see why it will be part of Islam as well. Some points that may make things easy to relate and corelate:
1) Islam did not start with the coming of the last prophet (saw). It is the same religion that was given to Adam, Nuh, Ibraheem, Musa, Isa (as). Even Quran categorically calls Ibraheem (as) as Muslim; not jewish, not christian. Name such as Judaism or Christianity are not the name of the actual religion. They are named after Personalities (Juda, Christ).
2) Islamic Scripture is the same continuation of the message that was given to previous prophets (as), hence, they and their stories are mentioned in Quran.
3) Quran testifies that there is light and guidance in Torah and Gospel (except that it also mentions that Jews and Christians have made ammendments in the scripture and truth is mixed with lies).
This only means that stoning punishment was given in the previous messages of God too.
Now you are dodging questions. Is stoning barbaric or not. Just answer that.
I won't lie. That's exactly what I meant but you made it sound more offensive than it was meant to be.
I just elaborated it .. Glad you admit that this is exactly what you meant in your post:)
It won't just strike me, boyphriend.. Yahan zalim aur bhi bethay hain!
what about the one who denies the existence of our lord despite of his continuous blessings and favors showered upon him/her .... Us se baRha Zalim koN hosakTa hai ...
Btw, I can live with problems of drugs, prostitution and alcoholism, etc., in a society, but I'm not sure if I can live in society where hands of thieves are cut off or pubic stoning is encouraged over things like sex between two consenting adults.
I am against both. I do not want pubs and discos opening up in Makkah and Madinah in the name of secularism and I do not want homosexuals to be stoned to death there either. Dare I say I feel like the moderate one around here.
Mufti Mehmood was a great scholar, and a much much better politician than his son.
So *you *think. Many people consider Fazlur Rehman to be a great scholar too.
Anyways, I don't think an intelligent person like you will believe this BS about stoning being done to give the person a chance to repent. That's really stupid reasoning.
It does not matter what I believe in, what matters is that the world has changed VERY MUCH since the 7th century. You talk about adultery, even the most hardcore Islamic nation aka Iran has put stoning on hold.
You have just described Shari'ah ... it is re-calibrated to suit the condition of a people not so it bends backward for them but enables a positive change to occur in them towards good. By putting stoning on hold due to a condition in the people - i.e. that adultery is too rife or something else then this is exactly what Shari'ah requires from those who implement it ... the idea of stoning to death the adulterer is when no cause can be attributed to society so full blame lies with the person who did the deed.
A pity when people think that certain "maximum" punishments are eased they think that Shari'ah is not being implemented - it can still very will be an operating Shari'ah even when laws are relaxed as long as:
a) The leaders don't deem stoning itself to be inherently wrong ... but simply not necessary for the time
b) The leaders use their influences to bend society towards the ideal mature Islamic state and do not allow the scales to tip in the other direction.
In an Islamically weak society tolerances are increased and in an Islamically strong society the tolerances are reduced ...
You live in a peaceful village, no weapons, no tech .. and someone commits a horrible crime that warrants execution.
Strangulation? And if it was the need of the hour, you do agree that its a barbaric punishment and should be discontinued? You are then tending towards secularism, my friend :)
I just elaborated it .. Glad you admit that this is exactly what you meant in your post:)
what about the one who denies the existence of our lord despite of his continuous blessings and favors showered upon him/her .... Us se baRha Zalim koN hosakTa hai ...
If the very lord allows suffering then by all means, strike me. I would rather be struck with lightning then worship a tyrant.
I care for God's creatures yet don't believe in its existence. If "God" uses reason then it will know that I mean no harm to its creation which i would assume should impress God more than him wanting to strike me..now unless of course the God itself a tyrant.