...in Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Pre-islam etc

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:x8-MtbRX9ggJ:www.islamicperspectives.com/Stoning4.htm+punishment+for+prostitution+in+islam&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=au

nah - that's cheating.

cant put up JUST links - HAVE to summarise it yourself.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values

Adultery: The [Islamic] penalty for adultery (extramarital sex) is death by stoning. Only the married participants are stoned to death. The penalty of death by stoning also applies to prostitution, incest and female genital mutilation (except for circumcision - see below).

Why are they using an IP address in the URL instead of the domain?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Oct 31^st, 2008 at 11:39am:

nah - that's cheating. cant put up JUST links - HAVE to summarise it yourself.

looool- no way man! who has that kind of time?!

freediver wrote on Oct 31^st, 2008 at 11:40am:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values Adultery: The [Islamic] penalty for adultery (extramarital sex) is death by stoning. Only the married participants are stoned to death. The penalty of death by stoning also applies to prostitution, incest and female genital mutilation (except for circumcision - see below). Why are they using an IP address in the URL instead of the domain?

I barely know what that means so unfortunately I can't help you!

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:x8-MtbRX9ggJ:www.islamicperspectives.com/Stoning4.htm+punishment+for+prostitution+in+islam&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=au

freediver,

The correct address is http://www.islamicperspectives.com/Stoning4.htm

It just appears to be linked to from some search engine results, which have an unresolvable ip.

From the Hadith....

The Book Pertaining to Punishments Prescribed by Islam
Chapter 5: HE WHO CONFESSES HIS GUILT OF ADULTERY
".....go to this woman in the morning, and if she makes a confession, then stone her.....and she was stoned to death."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/017.smt.html#017.4209



http://thereligionofpeace.com/index_files/Tehran-stoning.jpg
Done....
In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/001.qmt.html#001.001



++++++

Consider....

In the name of ISLAM, and Allah, Muhammad, himself, killed many hundreds of ppl [this is historical fact, confirmed by ISLAMIC texts].



In the name of God, it is recorded that Jesus killed no-one [not one single person], but rather Jesus healed the sick, and brought the dead back to life.

And what did Jesus *do*, when his adversaries brought an adulterous woman to him, for judgement?

John 8:3
And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
4  They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5  Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
6  This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7  So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8  And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9  And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10  When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11  She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
12  Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

yadda - I heard an interesting insight into the story of the adulterous woman.

There was no man to be stoned with her. Under the jew law, the man and woman are to be stoned.
There was no guilty man there to be stoned also.
It was most likely a kangaroo court, set up by the pharisees to test Jesus. They tested him a lot.

He saved the woman by proving they are sinners too. Therefore no better.
What he was writing in the sand was the sin of every pharisee as he came forward to cast the first stone.

No wonder they did not like him.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Oct 31^st, 2008 at 12:24pm:

yadda - I heard an interesting insight into the story of the adulterous woman. There was no man to be stoned with her. Under the jew law, the man and woman are to be stoned. There was no guilty man there to be stoned also. It was most likely a kangaroo court, set up by the pharisees to test Jesus. They tested him a lot. He saved the woman by proving they are sinners too. Therefore no better. What he was writing in the sand was the sin of every pharisee as he came forward to cast the first stone. No wonder they did not like him.

Wow!

Good anecdote sprint.

This line sent a shiver down my spine.....

".......What he was writing in the sand was the sin of every pharisee as he came forward to cast the first stone."





Paul said it well,

We are all condemned, we all have the same nature.

Romans 3:23
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;



Even when we see it [our nature], we are often powerless to overcome.

We wish to do the good, but we often fail.

Romans 7:18
For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
19  For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20  Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
21  I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
22  For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23  But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

Abu can you please clarify that the punishment in Islamic law for adultery is death by stoning? I haven't check out the link, but Gaybriel seems to think it contradicts the wiki.

well some say 100 lashes

some say stoning

did anyone notice the bit where the torah says that if a man rapes a woman he must her father 50 shekhels and marry her?

wth is that

The punishment of death by stoning applies to the married participants. The unmarried ones get 100 lashes.

Gaybriel wrote on Oct 31^st, 2008 at 11:46am:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Oct 31st, 2008 at 11:39am: nah - that's cheating. cant put up JUST links - HAVE to summarise it yourself. looool- no way man! who has that kind of time?!

Summaries are nice. I don't really have time to read it properly.

Could your point and potential summary be " Many religions behave appallingly therefore oppose and undermine appalling behaviour in all religions. "

If you can't be botheres putting up a summary, don't expect anyone else to be bothered reading your link.

Yadda wrote on Oct 31^st, 2008 at 2:24pm:

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 31st, 2008 at 2:11pm: One of the first requirements is that there must be at least 4 eye witnesses to the actual act. Yep, this is correct abu. There must be at least 4 male eye witnesses to these crimes. When a woman is being raped too, at least 4 male eye witnesses are required [by the victim]. For her appearance before a Sharia court [as an accused], 4 male eye witnesses are required, to confirm that she was not just having a 'good time', and was in fact being RAPED. 15 September 2006 Pakistan's rape reform woes Pakistan's government has put a controversial women's rights bill on hold, throwing into turmoil efforts to reform hardline Islamic laws on rape. In Pakistan, rape is dealt with under Islamic laws known as the Hudood Ordinances. These criminalise all sex outside marriage. So, under Hudood, if a rape victim fails to present four male witnesses to the crime, she herself could face punishment. This has made it almost impossible to prosecute rape cases. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5346968.stm Google, hudood laws http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=hudood+laws&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

Is this an accurate reflection of Islamic law?

What if the witnesses are 4 male Dhimmis and the perp is a Muslim?

however would there be 4 male eyewitnesses to a rape what would testify ??

they would either be normal blokes, and beat the offender up, so there is not crime.
Or they'ld be creeps and watch or take part. Inwhich case they would not testify.

no point in ever reporting a rape, there is no way it will ever be prosecuted.
Open season on women, who are only worth 1/2 a man anyway, according to the koran.

freediver wrote on Oct 31^st, 2008 at 2:30pm:

Is this an accurate reflection of Islamic law? What if the witnesses are 4 male Dhimmis and the perp is a Muslim?

There is some guidenace here FD.....


The Witness of Zimmis
Zimmis cannot testify against Muslims. They can only testify against other Zimmis or Musta'min. Their oaths are not considered valid in an Islamic court. According to the Shari`a, a Zimmi is not even qualified to be under oath. Muraghi states bluntly, "The testimony of a Zimmi is not accepted because Allah - may He be exalted - said: `God will not let the infidels (kafir) have an upper hand over the believers'."
http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/NonMuslims/rights.htm



".......Their oaths are not considered valid in an Islamic court."


Believers are innocent.

Unbelievers are guilty ppl.

How can the word [witness] of a guilty person be allowed to convict a muslim!!!!
spit! spit!
/sarc off

Oh. I thought the testimony of Dhimmis was merely inferior, rather than totally worthless.

So, if a muslim guy rapes a infidel ................

NO WAY is he in trouble.

Yadda wrote on Oct 31^st, 2008 at 2:39pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 31st, 2008 at 2:30pm: Is this an accurate reflection of Islamic law? What if the witnesses are 4 male Dhimmis and the perp is a Muslim? There is some guidenace here FD..... The Witness of Zimmis Zimmis cannot testify against Muslims. They can only testify against other Zimmis or Musta'min. Their oaths are not considered valid in an Islamic court. According to the Shari`a, a Zimmi is not even qualified to be under oath. Muraghi states bluntly, "The testimony of a Zimmi is not accepted because Allah - may He be exalted - said: `God will not let the infidels (kafir) have an upper hand over the believers'."http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/NonMuslims/rights.htm ".......Their oaths are not considered valid in an Islamic court." Believers are innocent. Unbelievers are guilty ppl. How can the word [witness] of a guilty person be allowed to convict a muslim!!!! spit! spit! /sarc off

If this is correct. IF! Then even the slightest consideration or support I may have had for Sharia Law courts in Australia is completely evaporated.

What is a Musta'min?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Oct 31^st, 2008 at 2:43pm:

So, if a muslim guy rapes a infidel ................ NO WAY is he in trouble.

sprint,

According to this guy, Abul Kasem, that is correct....



Quote:

The ‘Meat’ Imam and the Qur’an by Abul Kasem 08 November, 2006 ........A Muslim man commits rape if and only if he has sex with a Muslim woman out of wedlock. Having forced sex with an infidel woman does not at all constitute rape, Islamically speaking.

http://islam-watch.org/AbulKasem/MeatImam.htm

The answers to questions about concubines dried up very quickly. Perhaps that is why. Your right hand may posses a Dhimmi's wife, but not another Muslim woman.

locutius wrote on Oct 31^st, 2008 at 2:51pm:

If this is correct. IF! Then even the slightest consideration or support I may have had for Sharia Law courts in Australia is completely evaporated.

But, but, but, locutius!!!

Sharia are Allah's just laws.

......surely you understand that only the 'guilty' are convicted in Sharia courts!!
/sarc off

Quote:

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.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6148590.stm

Wa `alaykum As-Salamu wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh.


In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.



All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.



Dear brother in Islam, thanks a lot for your question which reflects your care to have a clear view of the teachings of Islam. Allah commands Muslims to refer to people of knowledge to get themselves well-acquainted with the teachings of Islam as well as all aspects of life.

In Islam, we are not allowed to tarnish the honor of anyone. One is required to produce four witnesses when making an allegation of adultery against another person; otherwise, one will be guilty of slandering.

A raped woman is a victim that must be treated with honor and kindness. She is not required to produce four witnesses to prove the crime done against her, nor is she punished for the crime done against her.

In his response to your question, Sheikh Ahmad Kutty, a senior lecturer and Islamic scholar at the Islamic Institute of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, states:



If a person makes an allegation of adultery against another person (male or female) he or she must produce four witnesses to support such an allegation; otherwise, he or she is guilty of slandering, which is a grave offense in Islam, for we are not to tarnish the honor of anyone.

A woman who has been raped cannot be asked to produce witnesses; her claim shall be accepted unless there are tangible grounds to prove otherwise. To insist that she provide witnesses is akin to inflicting further pain on her. If anyone refutes her claim of innocence, the onus is on him to provide evidence, and she may simply deny the claim by making a solemn oath, thus clearing herself in public. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “The onus to provide evidence falls on the one who makes a claim, and the one who denies (the same) can absolve himself or herself by making a solemn oath to the contrary.”

As for a spouse who witnesses his or her partner committing adultery and the other party denies it and they are unable to provide witnesses, they are, if they so desire, to part company by repudiating each other by engaging in what is known as a solemn oath and prayer of curse (li`an). It is described thus in the Qur’an: “And those who accuse their wives, and have no witnesses but themselves, then the testimony of each of them shall be a testimony sworn by God repeated four times, that he is indeed truthful. And the fifth (oath) is that God’s curse be upon him if he is lying. And it shall avert punishment from her that she testify a testimony repeated and sworn by God four times, that he is lying. And a fifth (oath) that the wrath of God be upon her, if he has spoken the truth” (An-Nur: 6-9).

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1119503548970&pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar%2FFatwaE%2FFatwaE

To insist that the raped victim must provide witnesses is akin to inflicting further pain on her. If anyone refutes her claim of innocence, the onus is on him to provide evidence, and she may simply deny the claim by making a solemn oath, thus clearing herself in public.

This is based on what the Prophet Muhammad (P) had once said:

“The onus to provide evidence falls on the one who makes a claim, and the one who denies (the same) can absolve himself or herself by making a solemn oath to the contrary.”

Further, the Prophet (P) was reported to have said that:

“Allah (T) has pardoned my people for the acts they do by mistake, due to forgetfulness and what they are coerced into doing.”3

An event concerning rape had in fact led towards the Prophet Muhammad (P) punishing a rapist without demanding or even hinting for four witnesses:

“Narrated Wa’il ibn Hujr: “When a woman went out in the time of the Prophet (P) for prayer, a man attacked her and overpowered [raped] her. She shouted and he went off, and when a man came by, she said: That [man] did such and such to me. And when a company of the Emigrants came by, she said: That man did such and such to me. They went and seized the man whom they thought had had intercourse with her and brought him to her.

She said: Yes, this is he. Then they brought him to the Apostle of Allah (P).

When he [the Prophet] was about to pass sentence, the man who [actually] had assaulted her stood up and said: Apostle of Allah, I am the man who did it to her.

He [the Prophet] said to her: Go away, for Allah has forgiven you. But he told the man some good words [Abu Dawud said: "meaning the man who was seized"], and of the man who had had intercourse with her, he said: “Stone him to death.“4

It should also be noted that it was related by Ibn Abi Shaybah through Târiq b. Shahab that a woman accused with adultery was taken to Caliph `Umar. The woman pleaded that she was asleep and woke up to find the man over her. `Umar released the woman.5

http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2006/does-islam-require-four-witnesses-for-rape/

not according to pakistan


Quote:

Pakistan's national assembly has voted to amend the country's strict Sharia laws on rape and adultery. 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.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6148590.stm

Sprintcyclist wrote on Oct 31^st, 2008 at 3:37pm:

not according to pakistan Quote: Pakistan's national assembly has voted to amend the country's strict Sharia laws on rape and adultery. 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. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6148590.stm

yes shariah is practised incorrectly in many countries

Gaybriel wrote on Oct 31^st, 2008 at 3:44pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Oct 31st, 2008 at 3:37pm: not according to pakistan Quote: Pakistan's national assembly has voted to amend the country's strict Sharia laws on rape and adultery. 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. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6148590.stm yes shariah is practised incorrectly in many countries

Do the countries doing it wrong think so? Is there one authority on correct practice?

locutius wrote on Oct 31^st, 2008 at 3:48pm:

Gaybriel wrote on Oct 31st, 2008 at 3:44pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on Oct 31st, 2008 at 3:37pm: not according to pakistan Quote: Pakistan's national assembly has voted to amend the country's strict Sharia laws on rape and adultery. 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. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6148590.stm yes shariah is practised incorrectly in many countries Do the countries doing it wrong think so? Is there one authority on correct practice?

you'd have to ask them- but if they're doing it I'd say not- although there may be people within the country who recognise it as wrong.

I don't know about a central authority on it- the orginal shariah law perhaps? or evidence from hadiths and the quran?

perhaps abu can answer that one

"ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Nov. 15 -- Pakistan's lower house of Parliament passed amendments to the country's rape laws Wednesday, ditching the death penalty for extramarital sex and revising a clause on making victims produce four witnesses to prove rape cases.

Consensual sex outside marriage would remain a crime punishable by five years in prison or a $165 fine, said a parliamentary official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to reporters.

 
International and local calls for change intensified after the 2002 gang rape of Mukhtar Mai. A tribal council in her village in Punjab province ordered the rape as punishment for her 13-year-old brother's alleged affair with a woman of a higher caste.

The amendments enraged Islamic conservatives but won cautious support from human rights activists, who wanted the controversial laws scrapped altogether.

Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, praised lawmakers for approving the amendments and criticized fundamentalists for their "unnecessary" opposition and their claims that his government was acting against Islam...."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/15/AR2006111500138.html


another muslim country  that is unislamic, even though they say they are.
Same as Saudi.

I doubt Abu could lie straight in bed, let alone prove quotes from the hadith/koran.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Oct 31^st, 2008 at 3:56pm:

"] another muslim country  that is unislamic, even though they say they are. Same as Saudi.

agreed


Quote:

I doubt Abu could lie straight in bed, let alone prove quotes from the hadith/koran.

quotes for what?