If You're a Muslim, Why Don't You Support Stoning to Death?

[Levanaye Zalmaye]

The topic is pretty much self-explanatory. According to many Sahih Hadith, men and women during early Islam were stoned to death for having sex outside wedlock. However, most Muslims nowadays blatantly oppose this punishment, thereby becoming sinful. Why?

[Mayana]

Because we don't live in an Islamic state. We can't live our lives by secular laws and punish by Islamic laws. If you want to punish by the Sharia.. you have to live by it first.. MHO =)

Edit: I know what I'm going to be asked next: "Hypothetically speaking, you approve of stoning and cutting hands off if it were in an Islamic state?" I don't know. Let me think about it and get back at you..

[Levanaye Zalmaye]

I see. So do you support the stonings and amputations that take place in Iran and Saudi Arabia (two Islamic states)?

Secondly, a secular state, by definition, does not come between you and your religious practices. For example, you practice your five pillars freely and you follow as many Hadith as you can yet you reject the ones that go against your conscience, for example, decapitations and the sort.

Thirdly, do you think that when you come face to face with God, you'll tell him that you rejected Him and His emissary because you were living by secular laws? Given His prior record, don't you think this argument will not work?

Edit: Did your Jinn tell you what I was gonna post? Can I borrow him? 5 dollaz long time? Yes?

[erlangner]

Because we don't live in an Islamic state. We can't live our lives by secular laws and punish by Islamic laws. If you want to punish by the Sharia.. you have to live by it first.. MHO =)

Edit: I know what I'm going to be asked next: "Hypothetically speaking, you approve of stoning and cutting hands off if it were in an Islamic state?" I don't know. Let me think about it and get back at you..

I support Mayana.
The things are not so simple dears.
If any one can give example from the prophet life where he gave stoning punishment to the man or woman who did not accept the crime. For such a punishment it is 100% essential that there must be four witnesses for such an act. Just seeing a woman going to a man home is not a reason for such act.
What is the philosophy for the witnesses?
Why Medical tests cannot be accepted for mutuallly agreed adultery, because islam does not want to punish at all.

Now if we see the case of an Iranian woman, did she accept the sin? Answer is no, it means she is innocent in Shariah. Ya if there are four witnesses, no. as It can only be possible if they have performed sexual act in the main square of Mashhad or esfahan city, otherwise who can see them at home at their bedroom. Ya if soemone tries to look at them from window, wintiletter etc, he is punsihable criminal, as per Umer ibn-e-khitab, who punished some people for doing this.

If a woman accept sex performance herself, or a man as well, then he or she is punishable to stoning. However, before this, it must be known, that she did not have any such need for which she was compellled for sex.
In such ideal situation stoning is just a name to stop the sex at social places and not at the people private bedrooms.

ALl should see the Soora-e-Noor but in details and with thinking please.

[Mayana]

Hmmm I don't know if those two states can be considered "Islamic State" because their state religion is Islam. For example the Iranian govrnment does not suit it's people. Many of them are agnostic, Sunni, Zoroastrian, atheist.. Can we truly expect such a people to live under purely Islamic laws when that is what they were before the revolution?

Regarding your second point I wanted to point out that we cannot have a society in which we on one hand allow intermingling between the genders so openly and on the other hand don't even have an approach that offers the "right way" of meeting someone for example in a masjid.. and THEN sit here and condemn them for commiting sins we never prevented from happening in the first place. We can't party by American law and punish by Islamic law. In order for these laws to be in use, all the other aspects of the Sharia have to be the law the society lives by. I don't know if I agree that such state exists in today's world..

And lastly.. regarding answering God.. I don't know Zalmayya. Will we be held accountable for not creating an Islamic state? Part of the set of rules that societies work by is that laws should equally apply to everyone. So if a man commits Zena and is not held accountable for it because he's not part of any religiuos group.. and a Muslim man commits Zena under the same circumstances.. will we let the first guy go and stone the second one? How do we apply these laws - that were designed to scare people away in order to prevent such actions - to everyone? I don't think selectively applying the laws is just .. but what other options are there? If laws are not collectively applied they can't be applied at all. Allah is merciful alhamdulillah, I don't think I as an Muslim in America am supposed to go stone people who do wrong. It's not anarchy, such decisions need to be made by an Islamic state, a jurisprudence, a judge and not just some random Mayana that comes up to people and throws stones at them loll so yeah, maybe his is another aspect that brings me back to Iran and Saudi Arabia. Is their jurisprudence truly just and Islamic?

(DISCLAIMER: All the quesions asked are actual questions, no rethorical questions in this post as I am brainstorming. )

PS yes, I'll lend you my jinns. Maybe you can investigate them too and find out what their DNA is and stuff so that we can pick up on that discussion we had :P

[eusuphxai]

stonning will take a long time why not just shoot her,




just kidding, dont waste bullets on her push her from a hill or something

[erlangner]

stonning will take a long time why not just shoot her,
just kidding, dont waste bullets on her push her from a hill or something

Halakka der zalim sarae ye. laga guzara kawa.
Zulam ao bia pa khaza, zra warsara rajegi.
Her cries will goes directly into aarash. Bas dua kawa, ao ham dawa kawa, che dassay situation de Allah pa cha na rawali. Just think, what she will be feeling after this decision my dear.
Moong kho bas de Ghani Baba pa shan siraf Allah ta de meena nak rab pa shan goroo ao ham da tamma tre satoo.

Rabba Ae janana Rabba,
Dagha yao swal kho manzoor ka

ka tre yaregoo ham, no ham lakka da janan tre yarego, charta khafa na shi, ao ka gilla ham tre kawoo, no lakka de janna pa shan,

Lan tanalul birra hatta tunfiqoo, mimma tuhibboon.

[شمله ور خراساني]

In an Islamic state, I support the implementation of hudood.

[eusuphxai]

mara asay gup may lagao walay may daltah pa dhay tolo janako kharabay

[IamDZJ]

it's barbaric

[king-zazai]

its good stoning it just means how much more the person is scared of allah's punishment also

cutting hands if we did it in america wud the cromes increase or decress???? execlty it will decress

islam has a solution 4 every little single thing thing in this world those who deny it and dont approve of it will c thier punishment

and lewanay y do u speak like a non-muslim??? did u give it up???

[MeemWawMeemNoon]

Stoning someone to death is not an Islamic concept. It was abrogated by Islam. However, before it was abrogated, the Prophet (saw) applied it to Jews, as head of state, because as per their teachings it applied and still applies. The Jews were content. The Prophet (saw) never liked it. This is where people have misunderstood it.

[MeemWawMeemNoon]

A misinformed tradition.

The more I see with how the Muslim world is not following Islam, the more I feel the need for help from the Heavens.

[MeemWawMeemNoon]

Their "interpretation" of Shariah.

[MeemWawMeemNoon]

Yes, but that has two meanings.

1-It only applies in EXTREME circumstances--when the state has done it part first, to provide.
2-It is metaphoric, i.e. put him in prison, as such restricting his hands.