Stoning to death and Sharia law

Schuhart

the_new_mr wrote:

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.

It might be useful to link that exact passage - I don't think any Quranic passage relevant to adultery has been posted yet, and it might clarify the exact context.

I'd wonder at the interpretation that this is to encourage people to keep their sins secret. Firstly, that seems to be proposing insincerity as a postive value, which I'd doubt is the intention. Consider the importance assigned to honesty in just about all other contexts.

Also, the requirement to have four witnesses to the actual act seems to allow quite a bit of public risk. You can disappear into a room together in public view and, so long as you lock the door after you, no-one can even whisper a doubt about what you are doing without getting a taste of the lash.

Peanut

the_new_mr wrote:

@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.

It wasn't a comment on whether it should be enforced or not.

I was referring to the argument put forward by other posters that in Islam the rule is there to protect society, because a rational person won't let themselves be witnessed at the scene of the crime, so to speak, by 4 others.

This is similar to the deterrent argument, and it relies on people acting rationally. But they don't really do that a lot of the time, and especially not when commiting some sort of crime in the eyes of their peers, so I can't see how this "protects society".

Regardless, the original poster's question was "Is stoning an acceptable part of Islam?", not "Under what circumstances does stoning apply" - perhaps the whole thread should be moved to humanities since discussion of the original question now seems to be off-topic.

the_new_mr

There's no need to move it since the discussion is still within the scope of Islam. If it branches off to "Is the death penalty acceptable?" then a split and move would do the job nicely.

As for your point of the rational and sane person, you could say that you'd have to be irrational to do it and let four witnesses see the act but I think that such a system will prevent those who are sane and rational but are perhaps prepared to be careless.

Sangre wrote:

I'm sorry, you couldn't prove you were raped, 80 lashes for you!

Rape would no doubt be a completely different kettle of fish and I'm sure would be handled differently.

Schuhart wrote:

It might be useful to link that exact passage - I don't think any Quranic passage relevant to adultery has been posted yet, and it might clarify the exact context.

Once again, post number 2.

Schuhart wrote:

I'd wonder at the interpretation that this is to encourage people to keep their sins secret. Firstly, that seems to be proposing insincerity as a postive value, which I'd doubt is the intention. Consider the importance assigned to honesty in just about all other contexts.

Well, as it happens, "Rabina amr bil satr" (God has ordered for concealment [of your sins]) is a common phrase uttered by Muslims. If you've sinned and nobody found out then you should keep it to yourself and make your peace with God by repenting. He had mercy on you by not letting anyone find out of your sin. Of course, you shouldn't commit adultery in the first place, that's very clear in the Quran. It's not like we're saying "Do what you like as long as nobody finds out".

Schuhart wrote:

Also, the requirement to have four witnesses to the actual act seems to allow quite a bit of public risk. You can disappear into a room together in public view and, so long as you lock the door after you, no-one can even whisper a doubt about what you are doing without getting a taste of the lash.

As has been said already, the couple may have second thoughts at the last moment.

Hobbes

Sangre wrote:

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

I haven't been on the forums for a while glad to see new_mr reopened the thread.

In response to your post Sangre, the earlier wiki link has some nice documentation from Imans on the subject. One of them I read clearly points out that Adultery and Rape are two very different things. While the first needs 4 witnesses to clearly see it happen the latter doesn't and a person can be convicted without 4 witnesses.

However while I can't see what the situation is in Middle East in the West for example being falsely accused of Rape is a very hard situation to get back from. Most people tend to treat the person as guilty even if proven not to be. Falsely accusing someone in the West gets off very likely.

InFront

DinoBot wrote:

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 don't think it's that it cannot happen, it's just very unlikely. The probability of four witnesses actually seeing adultery being committed and agreeing on the details of what they've seen is incredibly low. When was the last time anyone here was in a situation where, with three others, they saw adultery in a sexual context being committed?!

Would bearing a child not be "witness" of the act?

I'm pretty sure that it isn't. It's treated as circumstantial evidence, which obviously isn't good enough. I don't think DNA is considered acceptable either:
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503545892

jhegarty

Hobbes wrote:

However while I can't see what the situation is in Middle East in the West for example being falsely accused of Rape is a very hard situation to get back from. Most people tend to treat the person as guilty even if proven not to be. Falsely accusing someone in the West gets off very likely.

Yes, even in a case where there is 100% proof the rape did not take place (here is proof I was in china at the time..etc..etc..) the protections still exists for the "victim" and there is a still an accusation against the "criminal"...

Now I am not saying it should be lashes (a spell in jail would be more like it) or that it should be enforced where a case is not proved... but only where its prove beyond all doubt that the claim was made up ....

Morlar

InFront wrote:

I don't think it's that it cannot happen, it's just very unlikely. The probability of four witnesses actually seeing adultery being committed and agreeing on the details of what they've seen is incredibly low. When was the last time anyone here was in a situation where, with three others, they saw adultery in a sexual context being committed?!

Doesn't that same 4 witness rule also apply to rape cases in islamic sharia law? Dont rape victims also need 4 witnesses to prove their case - or is it 4 male witnesses ? Are you saying that under sharia law a rape conviction 'cannot happen' ?

Regardless of that one - the fact is that people (mostly women) are stoned to death in some islamic countries. It is practiced in Iran, nigeria, saudi arabia and a few others.

The people defending this say that its basically an abstract concept - never used in reality due to the ridiculousness of the 4 witness rule.

Thats just not the case. It happens to women who are accused of prostitution too not just adultery. There are other examples in recent years of stonings that have gone through sharia courts and those that have not but come about in the context of the islamic religon.

So the defence that it never happens, dont worry about it - you need 4 witnesses - is nonsense in my view. It does happen and thats the problem.

Hobbes

Morlar wrote:

Doesn't that same 4 witness rule also apply to rape cases in islamic sharia law?

No they do not need it. I recommend you go the "External Links" section of ...

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

and read the documents. They are by inmans regarding the laws and clear up a lot of misconceptions thrown around in the media.

This one is also a good link.
http://muslim-canada.org/Islam_myths.htm

The summary is that in the case of serious crimes there must not ever be any doubt to the persons guilt. If there is no confession and/or no four witnesses that clearly witnessed the crime then the person cannot be convicted.

This does not apply in rape cases as they are covered under a different law that I can see.

Yes it goes on in other countries and yes this is ignored by some countries. That is not a fault of Islam directly (that I can see).

Sangre

Hobbes wrote:

I haven't been on the forums for a while glad to see new_mr reopened the thread.

In response to your post Sangre, the earlier wiki link has some nice documentation from Imans on the subject. One of them I read clearly points out that Adultery and Rape are two very different things. While the first needs 4 witnesses to clearly see it happen the latter doesn't and a person can be convicted without 4 witnesses.

However while I can't see what the situation is in Middle East in the West for example being falsely accused of Rape is a very hard situation to get back from. Most people tend to treat the person as guilty even if proven not to be. Falsely accusing someone in the West gets off very likely.

I wasn't trying to compare Sharia's law stance on rape and adultery. I thought that was clear when I quoted a poster who was referring to reforms to Irish law. I merely picked rape as an example as to why punishing false accusations with lashes can be a bad thing. I picked rape because it has a notoriously low reporting rape and most governments try and encourage its reporting rather than discourage it.

Anyway, the west does have a method of discouraging false accusations, perjury. It gives Judges a pretty wide discretion as to the punishment as well. They don't get off lightly per se, its just quite hard to prove.

Morlar

Morlar
Doesn't that same 4 witness rule also apply to rape cases in islamic sharia law?

Hobbes wrote:

No they do not need it. I recommend you go the "External Links" section of ...

There's a risk of the thread being sidetracked here by focusing on one side point and ignoring the rest. I was going by these bbc site link's - which I would recommend back to you:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/2977446.stm

'There are four schools of Islamic law and the one in northern Nigeria - the Maliki one - is particularly strict.'

"Under the huddud law you have to produce four pious male Muslim eyewitnesses in order to prove illicit sex has taken place and it's impossible."

Also this one :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6153994.stm

'Until now, rape cases were dealt with in Sharia courts. Victims had to have four male witnesses to the crime - if not, they faced prosecution for adultery.'

==

Leaving aside the '4 witness needed for rape' side of it - the basic point of the previous post remains.

The people who condone or are trying to defend the practice of stoning people to death say that it basically never happens due to the extremeness of the 4 witness rule - however a quick go around google would seem to suggest otherwise in graphic detail. There are photographs and videos galore of this so the argument that it never happens due to needing 4 witnesses doesnt stand up in my view.

Hobbes

Well the premise I was getting from a number of posters (and I apologise if that was not your intent) is that somehow Rape cannot get a conviction if there was no witness or that somehow that women have less rights in this regard. This is not true and as I said the earlier stuff I linked to goes into great detail.

From the PDF "a rapist can be punished on the basis of medical evidence, circumstantial evidence, less than four witnesses, female testimony, etc. under the current Hudood Ordinance".

Even if it is later proven that the woman consented she couldn't be stoned to death unless the conditions already mentioned are there.

Hobbes

Ironically Molar you didn't even read the links I posted. They clearly go into the medias take on it and discuss in detail why its wrong from a legal sense by people qualified to make that judgement.

They even cite the quotes you posted.

As pointed out since what the second post on this thread? Yes it goes on, however it goes on in countries where it is clearly not following the law correctly.

Morlar

Hobbes wrote:

Ironically Molar you didn't even read the links I posted. They clearly go into the medias take on it and discuss in detail why its wrong from a legal sense by people qualified to make that judgement.

Actually I did read the external links - (not all of each of them as that would take a couple of days).

Just because I read something on a pro islam site doesnt mean I have to prefer its interpretation of reality over the bbc's.

(Referring to the external links on the wiki page not wikipedia itself).

All of this again is still a side issue.

The point is people here are defending the practice of stoning people (lets face it mostly women) to death for sex crimes (adultery or prostitution). This also applies to homosexuals (at least under the nigerian interpretation of sharia law). One of the basis for their argument is that in reality stoning never happens due to the 4 witness rule. Well it does happen (look up 'stoning to death iran/iraq' etc on google if you dont believe me) so the argument in defence on the basis of 4 witness rule is an irrelevance.

Schuhart

the_new_mr wrote:

Once again, post number 2.

Thanking you – I’d missed that, although it’s the key point.

Another angle occurs. The four witness requirement seems to be in relation to ‘chaste women’. Presumably, then, a man can be convicted with lesser proof. However, that opens the door to a man being convicted of adultery with a married woman on the basis of, say, one witness and the woman not being convicted at all.

That hardly seems coherent – the man being subjected to lashes in a situation where no-one can even suggest unfaithfulness by the person he’s been convicted of having an affair with.

the_new_mr wrote:

Well, as it happens, "Rabina amr bil satr" (God has ordered for concealment [of your sins]) is a common phrase uttered by Muslims. If you've sinned and nobody found out then you should keep it to yourself and make your peace with God by repenting. He had mercy on you by not letting anyone find out of your sin.

Interesting idea, which I wasn’t aware of. However, that also seems to move the emphasis away from protection of society and towards protection of the individual.

the_new_mr wrote:

As has been said already, the couple may have second thoughts at the last moment.

Indeed, but doesn’t the fact remain that they can be blatant about everything short of the actual act of penetration, erasing any possibility that this protects society from the sight of impropriety?

Morlar

I am still curious if the people (boards moderators and such) who support stoning women - have actually seen photographs or video footage of this ?

I think this is a relevant point.


If their support is given out of blind religious faith then I would not agree with them but I could possibly understand where they are coming from.

On the other hand if this is being approved of by muslims despite a full knowledge and awareness of the brutality of the act well then that puts their approval and their tacit support of this practice in a different light.

the_new_mr

Once again, I don't know of any countries that carry out the law correctly.

If you believe that stoning is part of Islam then, if you know the law correctly, you'll also know that the stoning that goes on Nigeria and other countries isn't being done right at all and women are often sentenced unfairly. I remember one case in Nigeria where, because a woman was pregnant and had just divorced her husband, she was accused of adultery. Ridiculous!! She was probably carrying her husband's baby! Not only that, but she wasn't married at the time which means that the sentence should have been different anyway. They're all too anxious to carry out stonings over there. It's a joke. That's why Tariq Ramadan is calling for a moratorium. He's trying to get the system sorted in some way.

On the other hand, if you believe that stoning is not part of Islam (as I do) then you can still see that the way the law is being carried out with respect to stoning still does not satisfy the conditions required.

We're not saying that it would never happen because it's impossible. We're just saying that it should very rarely happen because of the difficult conditions required.

Finally, don't blame Islam for the actions of others. We have to draw a clear distinction between Islam and those who say they are acting in the name of it. So, please no more "But it's happening in Nigeria" etc etc. I'm as unhappy about it as you are but it's well beyond the scope of this forum. There's not much we can do about it.

PDN

Of course the four witnesses requirement is not necessary if the person confesses to adultery. Isn't this the basis on which Mohammed allowed a pregnant woman to have her baby and then ordered her stoned afterwards?

Morlar

This is probably an impossible question to answer but does anyone know what percentage of muslims disapprove of the practice of stoning ?

Is this sect based (is shias approve sunnis dont etc) or is it across the boards ?

the_new_mr

Schuhart wrote:

Thanking you – I’d missed that, although it’s the key point.

Thought you did. You're welcome anyway.

Schuhart wrote:

Another angle occurs. The four witness requirement seems to be in relation to ‘chaste women’. Presumably, then, a man can be convicted with lesser proof. However, that opens the door to a man being convicted of adultery with a married woman on the basis of, say, one witness and the woman not being convicted at all.

That hardly seems coherent – the man being subjected to lashes in a situation where no-one can even suggest unfaithfulness by the person he’s been convicted of having an affair with.

Well, I don't think that's the way it is. You still need four witnesses to accuse a man of adultery as far as I know. I think that perhaps (and I'm not entirely sure) it's usually women who are accused of being unchaste in society then the verse talks about them. Must find out more about this though to see if accusing a man of being unchaste puts you in the same hot water.

Schuhart wrote:

Interesting idea, which I wasn’t aware of. However, that also seems to move the emphasis away from protection of society and towards protection of the individual.

Well, it's considered a mercy to the individual. At the same time, it's still a protection to the society. When people know of other peoples' sins, that can sometimes be enough to propagate sin.

Schuhart wrote:

Indeed, but doesn’t the fact remain that they can be blatant about everything short of the actual act of penetration, erasing any possibility that this protects society from the sight of impropriety?

True but you can't have it any other way. And, the society will be protected from seeing the act itself. Children won't be mentally scarred by it etc etc.

the_new_mr

PDN wrote:

Of course the four witnesses requirement is not necessary if the person confesses to adultery. Isn't this the basis on which Mohammed allowed a pregnant woman to have her baby and then ordered her stoned afterwards?

Well, I'm not sure if that hadith is authentic but I think that confession does it yeah.

DinoBot

the_new_mr wrote:

Well, I'm not sure if that hadith is authentic but I think that confession does it yeah.

How many muslims agree that this hadith is not authentic. I was never told it was not, nor have I seen any writings from scholars saying its not true. Can you post a link to show its not authentic (or reference to where I can read it)

Hobbes

the_new_mr wrote:

Well, I'm not sure if that hadith is authentic but I think that confession does it yeah.

I feel like repeating myself over and over. The link I posted goes into detail on this. The fact is that he did not call for the death of an unborn child. This is also covered in the link I posted.

The PDFs are an interesting read. Long but worth it rather the people going over and over with this BS.

wes

DinoBot wrote:

How many muslims agree that this hadith is not authentic. I was never told it was not, nor have I seen any writings from scholars saying its not true. Can you post a link to show its not authentic (or reference to where I can read it)

Hadiths need to be proven to be true first and are generally not taken to be authentic until then. So those posting them, should make an effort to show that they are authentic. Even if they are considered to be Authentic, this may not be the case among all Muslims. Hadith are not the be all and end all of faith, they can be rejected. The Koran is the best authority on these things. Hadith are tertiary. So using Hadith to show what Muslims believe isn't the best way, as there is disagreement and some Hadith are just false.

So what authentic can be different from Muslim to Muslim, even if they are technically apart of the same sect. It depends on which scholars they personally trust, or themselves if they feel themselves to have sufficient knowledge to make such judgments. The way I was raised, I would not accept that Hadith.

InFront

Morlar wrote:

Are you saying that under sharia law a rape conviction 'cannot happen' ?

In a case of rape, there is a thing called a tazeer judgement, which basically means a judgement made on behalf of an Islamic Judge when he is given medical evidence to prove that the rape occured as opposed to witness statements. Four witnesses is not actually absolutely essential, although the certainty of judgement will be lessened and the accused cannot be given the death penalty.
In any event, I'm sure you'd agree one is far more likely to come across 4 witnesses to a rape than 4 witnesses to a case of adultery. Because of its predatory nature, screaming or the rape victim trying to escape, rape is far more likely to be witnessed than sex between two consenting adulterers.

So the defence that it never happens... is nonsense in my view. It does happen and thats the problem.

Again, I'm not actually saying it doesn't/ has never happened. And also, nobody is saying that Shari'a operates properly anywhere on the planet.

InFront

Morlar wrote:

I am still curious if the people (boards moderators and such) who support stoning women - have actually seen photographs or video footage of this?

Firstly Morlar, nobody is "supporting stoning women". I think language like that is excessively emotive firstly because this thread's about whether or not there is a place in Islam for the stoning of serious adulterers, people who Shari'ah counts as criminals. It's not a question about whether anyone likes or gets a kick out of the idea, I doubt anybody "supports" it like that.
Secondly, that phrase seems to single out women as if this sort of ruling somehow only applies to women and not to men. That's not the case.

To answer your question, I don't doubt the nature of the death. When you reflect on the punishement, it's obviously a very disturbing feeling. But no I haven't personally looked a clip up on the internet, and have no interest or happiness in watching another individual die.

Morlar

InFront wrote:

Firstly Morlar, nobody is "supporting stoning women". I think language like that is excessively emotive firstly because this thread's about whether or not there is a place in Islam for the stoning of serious adulterers, people who Shari'ah counts as criminals. It's not a question about whether anyone likes or gets a kick out of the idea, I doubt anybody "supports" it like that.
Secondly, that phrase seems to single out women as if this sort of ruling somehow only applies to women and not to men. That's not the case.

To answer your question, I don't doubt the nature of the death. When you reflect on the punishement, it's obviously a very disturbing feeling. But no I haven't personally looked a clip up on the internet, and have no interest or happiness in watching another individual die.

My thoughts would be that if you are going to support or attempt to justify this practice then you should be familiar with what it involves - watching a video of it on the internet would be a good start.

I singled out women in earlier comments because by all accounts in practice far more women end up being stoned than men.

InFront

I'm not sure how anyone couldn't know what it involves. I just don't see the point of watching it on youtube (or whatever).

I singled out women in earlier comments because by all accounts in practice far more women end up being stoned than men.

But nobody is suggesting that has anything to do with Shari'ah, which is what this discussion is about.
Ireland has more male prisoners than female prisoners, it would be extremely misleading to say that people who agree with imprisonment as a punitive measure "support the imprisonment of men".
Also in relation to a possible gender anomaly, once again, as far as I know, nobody here is actually satisfied with how Shari'ah is executed (I can't think of a better word) into laws in any of the individual countries supposedly with Shari'ah Law. You can be pretty sure very few of those cases have four witnesses all agreeing on the details, for example.

DinoBot

wes wrote:

It depends on which scholars they personally trust, or themselves if they feel themselves to have sufficient knowledge to make such judgments. The way I was raised, I would not accept that Hadith.

Thanks,

Yeah, I think thats what causes alot of problems in Islam. Some Hadith's are there which seem to go against the nature of Islam. So , as you said in your reply, it really comes down to the type of person you are and your upbring that enables you to reject such hadiths.
It would be nice if there was some uniformity on such matters.

Sangre

InFront wrote:

Ireland has more male prisoners than female prisoners, it would be extremely misleading to say that people who agree with imprisonment as a punitive measure "support the imprisonment of men".

Hardly a valid comparison. Adultery, by definition, requires both a man and a woman to commit the act. (although would 2 men be killed for adultery or for the gay sex?)

InFront

I'm not making that comparison in order to suggest something about who commits adultery, I'm just saying that morlar's comment "the people who support stoning women" was very misleading on a number of levels, not least because stoning as a potential punishment isn't confined or even especially associated with women under Shari'ah (provided one believes it is an authentically proven punishment under Shari'ah to begin with, of course).
I just get the feeling that singling out women like that is intended to suggest that Islam has some particular beef with women, maybe I'm reading too much into it.

And yes, it would seem to make sense that engaging in homosexual relations would also consitute adultery if the individual (or both individuals) were simultaneously married.