Stoning to death and Sharia law

Asiaprod

Is there any mechanism in place that would enable Islam to change the method of punishment from stoning to something more humane.

Hobbes

MooseJam wrote:

we all could hide our heads in the sand but i don't think that is particularly beneficial, there are a lot of people here endorsing stoning to death, perhaps if they had also seen someones life taken in this way they would not be so quick to embrace it

There is no one in the thread endorsing the stoning to death. I was serious when I said I would ban people if they continued on this vein. This is your last warning.

Lemming wrote:

Hobbes, you cannot *honestly* be defending stoning as a manner of punishment ....

Some people seriously need to READ THE THREAD. I do not defend stoning as a manner of punishment at all. I make this quite clear in my earlier posts. I do not find other methods of death penalty humane either so I would lump stoning in with them. Is that clear enough for you?

jhegarty

hobbes wrote:

There is no one in the thread endorsing the stoning to death. I was serious when I said I would ban people if they continued on this vein. This is your last warning.

Not in the mood for a ban, I will rebuff your post with a simple quote.....

InFront wrote:

Which form of administering death is best is a more complex issue, but yes I think stoning can be one of those methods under some serious circumstances.

Hobbes

You already have a thread in feedback you can discuss that line of topic but I do not read that as being an endorsement.

You also appear to be clearly skipping over post 16 which a few people have referred you to, to get Infronts position regarding the issue.

For the last time if people want to continue this line of the thread they can do so in the feedback thread.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055111799

Tar.Aldarion

Asiaprod wrote:

Is there any mechanism in place that would enable Islam to change the method of punishment from stoning to something more humane.

Humane is such a paradox of a word... Anyway.
Would somebody here be against stoning but think for the same crime, a more 'humane' way of killing the person is acceptable?

donaghs

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Humane is such a paradox of a word... Anyway.
Would somebody here be against stoning but think for the same crime, a more 'humane' way of killing the person is acceptable?

Well I opppose the death penalty, I can definitly see a difference. For example, it's blindingly obvious to me that there is a difference between instant death on a guillotine, and someone being slowly tortured to death.

Tar.Aldarion

That is not the answer to the question I asked?

Lemming

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

That is not the answer to the question I asked?

To answer your question - forgetting disagreement with the death penalty for one moment, it's hardly a capital crime is it? Some people will claim it is an assault on society and thus the person is a deadly threat. To be perfectly honest, I would consider someone willing to beat another person to death with stones to be a far more dangerous threat to society than someone who engages in an act of adultery.

Tar.Aldarion

No, I wouldn't call it a capital crime, or even a crime, it hurts somebodies feelings but that is about it.
What if the whole society acts this way you describe? Willing to stone etc. Surely they are not acting as a threat to themselves? Or do you mean in countries that are not mostly Islamic?

Lemming

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

What if the whole society acts this way you describe? Willing to stone etc. Surely they are not acting as a threat to themselves? Or do you mean in countries that are not mostly Islamic?

I'm having trouble translating that sentence - could you possibly rephrase it?

Hobbes

The threads main point was how the stoning related to Islam. That has for the most part been addressed. It is not a discussion on morality of the issue. I direct you to the Humanities forum for that.

For the moment to save me from banning anyone I am locking the thread. Do not attempt to start new threads on this for the immediate meantime until everyone can discuss on topic/civil or until one of the other mods overrules me.

You have an issue with it take it up on feedback.

Hobbes

throwing this on the end as it clearly details whats required.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudud

the_new_mr

Thanks for the help Hobbes.

If you don't mind, I'll re-open the thread. Questions deserve to be answered and a discussion should not be stifled. We don't want people to think you can't ask questions in here. As long as it's civilised and respectable then it's okay.

However, breaking forum charter rules will not be accepted. This forum is for the discussion of the religion of Islam and for questions thereof. Anyone attacking Islam or Muslims will be banned. Anyone attacking or insulting another poster (Muslim or non-Muslim) will be banned. Do not repeat already dealt with questions. This won't get you banned necessarily but it can be quite annoying and ends up repeating the whole process again with a string of "That's what I said earlier..." posts.

For people who don't read entire posts of threads (and maybe because I make my posts too long), I'll summarise using the following bullet points.

1.: I've already stated that I lean towards the opinion that Islam does not contain the law to stone and therefore kill adulterers (see post number 2). InFront is of the other opinion and he is free to express it. Don't attack him for it.

2.: This thread is for the discussion of stoning and the death penalty within Islam. It is NOT for the discussion of whether or not the death penalty is an acceptable practice. If you want to discuss this then I suggest you go to humanities.

3.: Regardless of whether or not Islam calls for the flogging or stoning of adulterers, the law is equally applicable to both men and women. Contrary to popular opinion, men are not excluded from this law.

4.: Either possibility of the law is only applicable to Muslims. Non-Muslims in a Muslim state are governed by the laws of their own holy books.

5.: Finally (for now), the punishment (whatever it may be) can only be carried out if the couple have been witnessed by FOUR (count'em) trust-worthy witnesses. And these witnesses have to have seen the act in all its detail (think of the most detail you can think of).

Please continue the discussion in a civilised manner. Anyone who does not do so will get a warning and then a ban (or a ban straight away if it warrants one). Letting you all know now so that you don't yell "No fair!!" later.

Asiaprod

Thanks. I wold like an answer to my earlier question.

"Is there any mechanism in place that would enable Islam to change the method of punishment from stoning to something more humane, or can the written word not be altered."

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Would somebody here be against stoning but think for the same crime, a more 'humane' way of killing the person is acceptable?

Not sure if this was directed at, but if so:
As a Buddhist, I am against any form of death penalty, period. However, if followers of another religion accept it as part of their belief system, then they accept it. As was pointed out in the Feedback forum, there is a vast difference in how east and west view things. Values may not necessarily span the divide.

Tar.Aldarion

Hi Asiaprod, no, it was not just directed at you. I simply wanted to know if people could support one death penalty and not another, for the same crime.


Anyway, as a buddhist, you believe in reincarnation I take it, so no harm no foul if you kill someone?

Asiaprod

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Anyway, as a buddhist, you believe in reincarnation I take it, so no harm no foul if you kill someone?

Oh no, If I kill some one I have to deal with what follows, not that someone. That someone already has their own to deal with.:)

Schuhart

the_new_mr wrote:

the punishment (whatever it may be) can only be carried out if the couple have been witnessed by FOUR (count'em) trust-worthy witnesses.

I suppose an obvious question is why anyone would have such an apparently pointless rule – as you say, it’s highly unlikely that four witnesses will be present. It’s almost a rule designed never to be applied, not unlike the passage in the Christian bible, ironically inviting the stoning to be commenced by someone who hasn’t sinned.

As I understand it, the context for this revelation was an allegation of adultery made against one of Mohammed’s wives. Hence, the relevant verses placed an impossible burden of proof on anyone making that specific accusation.

I know it’s possible to shrug and say ‘that’s the way God wants it, no reason that it should make sense to us’. But does this really look like a standing instruction to stone adulterers, relevant for all time?

Morlar

I am not trying to take this off topic but I am genuinely curious and it has a bearing (I think).

This is a question to the people posting here who believe that the stoning to death of sinners is justifiable.

Have you ever seen video footage showing in full the act of someone (male or female) being stoned to death, or are you agreeing in principle to an act you have not witnessed a recording of ?

If you have actually seen it - would you agree that as a method of execution it is not designed to lessen the suffering of the person to be executed ?

It seems to me that the choice of certain smaller sized stones is intended to deprive the victim of a swift death and to ensure that the mental anguish and physical agonies are extended for the as long as possible.

From what I have seen on the internet of women being bound and buried up their knees and stoned for 10-15 minutes in the head with golf ball sized stones - this method appears to be designed for crowd satisfaction and not to ensure a swift death. Just to state where I stand I have no problem with the death penalty for murderers or rapists - but not for adulterers and not by stoning.

User45701

...

....

Em. Ok Ive been sitting at this monitor and ive wasted 10 mins of my lunch trying to decide what to say because i actually dont know which is unusual for me.

I had no idea that it was possible in this day and age for someone who did not grow up in a country where religious law is enforced to be conditioned.

These same people who say stoning is ok and its ok to baptise your child and teach him about god.

Its all conditioning in one form or another, condition the children while they are young, that’s what keeps religion going, perhaps the stoning is supposed to force couples to stay together and there force the female breeding out of the "flock" is less unlikely so there is no chance of her falling for some Irish guy and throwing off the religion.

Ive always loved the reaction i got out of catholic priests and teachers when i used to compare them making mass mandatory in school to a parent teaching there child from the day its born that Satan is lord Ect Ect.

Fear is a very effective way at keeping order I don’t care what anyone says, Fear does keep order but it won’t do it forever. These primitive actions won’t last that long I would be very VERY surprised if it was still going on in 3 generations.

Anyway so Islam thinks stoning a adulater is ok, I know there are several different faiths and i may be confusing them but don’t the islamic muslims have some problem with a picture of Muhammad?

So maybe they would get just as outraged at you as you do at them when they stone people if you where to make sure that there are pictures of Muhammad in every city, a bit unrealistic but id say you’d get a good reaction out of them.

Since it can’t be stopped right now im not sure what else there is to do besides opposing people with such primitive beliefs.

hmm i still don’t know what im saying im kinda typing randomly just trying to show anyone who thinks it’s ok to stone an adulater, that things we have no problem with can piss them off allot as well.

Anyway on another note i wonder what the punishment for throwing a stone should be?

Does someone who stones someone else get stoned themselves so they know what it’s like?
No because then you would have to stone the stoners or the stoner...

So lethal injection? Hanging? Both are still death just less painful.

You see even in say 20 years say the whole world actually gets some ****ing sense and all this bollox is behind us there will always be the people who cling to the old ways and even if stoning of adulaters was made illegal I’m sure the odd one would still get got by a band of roaming primitives, so if they where caught what should there punishment be?

Id take the eyes myself. The person does not need them because

1. They are not a useful member of society.
2. They can’t take aim with no eyes.
3. Warning to everyone else.

There a few more things I’d like to say and talk about however i doubt this jumble or words will make anyone decide to question their faith,

I’m better at doing that in person.

PDN

the_new_mr wrote:

However, breaking forum charter rules will not be accepted. This forum is for the discussion of the religion of Islam and for questions thereof. Anyone attacking Islam or Muslims will be banned. Anyone attacking or insulting another poster (Muslim or non-Muslim) will be banned.

So wouldn't that mean that it is a banning offence to express any opinion on this subject other than that it must be a good idea since it's in the Quran, and that those who stone people to death are jolly good blokes?

DinoBot

the_new_mr wrote:

5.: Finally (for now), the punishment (whatever it may be) can only be carried out if the couple have been witnessed by FOUR (count'em) trust-worthy witnesses. And these witnesses have to have seen the act in all its detail (think of the most detail you can think of).
.

Hi

You have used that concept of four-witnesses before as if its something which
can never happen. So, as someone else pointed out, whats the point of having a
rule that can never be enforced ?

I was always under the impression that modern DNA sampling could be used as
witness. Would bearing a child not be "witness" of the act ? Would taking fluid samples
not be "witness" that the act took place ?

If not,then how would the case of rape of a woman be proved ? Would she need
four witness to see every detail ? Surly other type of evidance could be used to prove zina against her

HelterSkelter

A lot of people are talking about stoning to death as a punishment for a crime, but my understanding is that it is meant to be a deterrant to others from commiting the crime. If you knew you were going to be stoned to death for doing something, do you think you would be less likely to do it? I suppose in an ideal world nobody would commit the crime as they would be afraid of being stoned to death, and because nobody commits the crime, nobody gets stoned.

In saying that, I disagree with stoning anyone to death.

Tar.Aldarion

They are already very afraid of getting caught, but if you are married to somebody and fall in love with somebody else, I don't think even the possibility of death would be a deterrent for a lot of people.

the_new_mr

Asiaprod wrote:

"Is there any mechanism in place that would enable Islam to change the method of punishment from stoning to something more humane, or can the written word not be altered."

Well, even though I don't think stoning is prescribed in the first place, I think that if a specific punishment is mentioned then it can't/shouldn't be changed but if the punishment (say for murder) is death but no specific method is mentioned then I suppose the method of punishment can be changed but I'm not sure so don't quote me on that.

@Schuhart & DinoBot
As has been said more than once in this thread, it would seem more to protect the society. The rule is there and if the conditions are met then that's it. How likely are they to be met? Very unlikely but it's there.

Not sure about the DNA sampling thing. It's a good question and one that should addressed by scholars in the know if it hasn't already. Certainly in the case of rape.

PDN wrote:

So wouldn't that mean that it is a banning offence to express any opinion on this subject....

It's a fine line between asking and attacking. I think common sense rules pretty well. People can tell the difference between simply asking or discussing to attacking.

Tar.Aldardion wrote:

They are already very afraid of getting caught, but if you are married to somebody and fall in love with somebody else, I don't think even the possibility of death would be a deterrent for a lot of people.

What about divorce? You could get divorced and then marry the other person. And, besides, as has been said countless times now, the punishment (whether it be flogging or stoning... whatever you believe) is only exercised in the case of four witnesses.

Peanut

At the risk of going off-topic again, the idea of capital punishment as a deterrent, apart from any ethical arguments, assumes that the perpetrator is going to be of rational mind and consider the consequences of an action before they act, but this just doesn't happen in reality.

Schuhart

the_new_mr wrote:

@Schuhart & DinoBot
As has been said more than once in this thread, it would seem more to protect the society. The rule is there and if the conditions are met then that's it. How likely are they to be met? Very unlikely but it's there.

But surely this is the unanswered point that we've raised. How is society protected by a rule made subject to conditions that are almost comically unlikely?

Plus there is the context in which this rule was delivered - which was to protect someone accused of adultery (specifically, Mohammed's wife) and not to protect the society. If anything, the message to be taken out of this is that people have no right to stick their noses into someone else's marriage, even if they think one party is being unfaithful.

the_new_mr

@Peanut
That is off-topic and off-forum. If you want to discuss whether or not capital punishment should be enforced, please do it in humanities.

@Schuhart
Society is protected in the sense that, if two individuals do want to commit adultery (which they shouldn't) then they'll be sure not to do it in public or with the risk of someone seeing them.

Well, the verses referred to in the story you linked to are verses 11-20 of Surat Al-Nur which speak mainly of (as you said) keeping your noses out of it and especially not slandering others without sure knowledge (and three other witnesses to back you up... or it's 80 lashes). The verses that speak of punishment for adultery (provided the condition of the four witnesses is satisfied) is a general reference to society as a whole.

jhegarty

the_new_mr wrote:

What about divorce? You could get divorced and then marry the other person. And, besides, as has been said countless times now, the punishment (whether it be flogging or stoning... whatever you believe) is only exercised in the case of four witnesses.

Can a Woman divorce under Sharia law without her husbands consent ? I remember hearing that it wasn't allow in some Muslim countries , but can't remember if it was civil or Sharia law that stopped it.

the_new_mr wrote:

Well, the verses referred to in the story you linked to are verses 11-20 of Surat Al-Nur which speak mainly of (as you said) keeping your noses out of it and especially not slandering others without sure knowledge (and three other witnesses to back you up... or it's 80 lashes).

80 lashes would make you think twice about making a report :eek: I think we really need to look at more punishment in our laws (prison not lashes) for people that make false accusations...

wes

jhegarty wrote:

Can a Woman divorce under Sharia law without her husbands consent ? I remember hearing that it wasn't allow in some Muslim countries , but can't remember if it was civil or Sharia law that stopped it.

A Woman, can divorce her husband.

Sangre

the_new_mr wrote:

And, besides, as has been said countless times now, the punishment (whether it be flogging or stoning... whatever you believe) is only exercised in the case of four witnesses.

Well, the issue isn't whether the victims are guilty or not, the issue is the fact the guilty are fúcking stoned to death.

jhegarty wrote:

I think we really need to look at more punishment in our laws (prison not lashes) for people that make false accusations...

And discourage genuine claims? I'm sorry, you couldn't prove you were raped, 80 lashes for you!