This article is a perfect litmus test by the media, intentionally or unintentionally, as to just how insanely dumb the guy on the street is, Muslim or not!
On what grounds is this an execution for adultery?
Adultery executions can only be carried out if there is CRYSTAL CLEAR evidence for adultery, which is -
1) a confession; or
2) 4 adult male Muslim witnesses actually witnessing the act of coitus between a man and a woman who are married to other people and testifying it under oath, just witnessing the coitus itself is not enough, they should also have seen the faces of the people involved and recognize who's who (if the faces are not seen and/or recognized, it could just be a man and a wife in the act that any four people can accuse)
Were there any confessions? If yes, by whom?
So if it was consensual, then why isn't the man she committed zina with, executed? Islamic law imposes the same punishment on both parties.
If it wasn't consensual, then that almost indicates to a rape, in which case the woman is guilt free and the man is the one who should be executed.
It's not just a story of "something just doesn't add up" but some total fictional account which by the standards of the Shari'ah is a gross violation of it - being painted as an implementation of the Shari'ah or "extreme interpretations" of it!
The saddest thing is there are pathetic people who call themselves Muslims, but rushing to show their allegiance to the kuffaar by denouncing this act.
This execution if it did in reality happen exactly as described by the media, deserves condemnation, no doubt. BUT before these so called Muslims go ahead and condemn the act, they should point to the elephant in the room and ask some straight forward questions to the media about this story, if at all they are serious.
It doesn't matter if some Muslims like the Taliban or are against them or think of them to be dumb extremists or terrorists, or wahhabis or sufis or anything! As Muslims we should firstly question this story which is most probably a work of fiction! Even the most deviant of extremists who are total dummies at interpreting the Shari'ah, won't commit such a gross travesty such as this!
But alas! People sleep.
Results 21 to 30 of 30
14-Jul-2012 04:06 AM
- Join Date
- Mar 2010
14-Jul-2012 12:06 PM
Prosecution of adulterers through the testimony of four witnesses is extremely rare. In fact, scholars have mentioned that there has ever been a successful prosecution using this standard of proof. This law protects society, and it does that by preventing open vice.
Singapore: oppresses Muslims, bans athaan, bans hijab in schools, prevents building of madrassahs or muslim schools, puts limit on the percentage of Muslims allowed in each apartment building, and bans Muslims from joining Singapore's elite military forces. Singapore; Israel's best buddy!
14-Jul-2012 03:27 PMI think that it should be noted that courts admit the evidence of female witnesses.
- Join Date
- Mar 2010
How do you know he wasn't executed? There could be many reasons why he wouldn't be; if he wasn't married, if there are insufficient witnesses, and he made no confession, or he simply fled before he could be punished.
My point was that this story has gaping holes in it and no Muslim is taking the media up on it!
14-Jul-2012 03:55 PM
Only the ruler has the right to authorise the hadd punishment:
No one should carry out the hadd punishments without the permission of the ruler. If there is no ruler who rules according to sharee’ah then it is not permissible for the ordinary people to carry out the hadd punishments. Whoever does that is sinning, because carrying out the hadd punishments requires examining the matter and requires shar’i knowledge in order to know the conditions of proof.
The ordinary people have no knowledge of such things, and the carrying out of one of the hadd punishments by the ordinary people leads to many evils and the loss of security, whereby people will attack one another and kill one another or chop off one another’s hands on the grounds that they are carrying out hadd punishments.
There is no dispute among the scholars that qisaas (retaliatory punishments) such as execution cannot be carried out except by those in authority who are obliged to carry out the qisaas and carry out hadd punishments etc, because Allaah has addressed the command regarding qisaas to all the Muslims, and it is not possible for all the Muslims to get together to carry out the qisaas, which is why they appointed a leader who may represent them in carrying out the qisaas and hadd punishments.
[Tafseer al-Qurtubi, 2/245, 246]
Ibn Rushd al-Qurtubi said:
With regard to the one who should carry out this punishment – i.e., the hadd punishment for drinking alcohol – they agreed that the ruler should carry it out, and that applies to all the hadd punishments.
[Bidaayat al-Mujtahid, 2/233]
It was narrated from Abu’l-Zinaad from his father that the fuqaha’ of the people of Madeenah used to say that no one should carry out any of the hadd punishments except the ruler, unless it is a man carrying out the hadd punishment for zina on his male or female slave.
[Nayl al-Awtaar, 7/295, 296]
The family of the woman should prevent her from committing immoral actions and should prevent the things that lead to that, such as going out, speaking to non-mahram men, and everything that may enable her to commit evil. If the only way is to detain her and tie her up, then they have the right to do that, so they should detain her in the house.
But as for killing her, they should not do that. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) was asked about a married woman who had children and who formed an attachment to a man and committed immoral actions with him. When she was found out, she tried to leave her husband: did she have any right to her children after doing this? Was there any sin on them if they cut off relations with her? Was it permissible for the one who has proof of that to kill her secretly? If someone else did that would he be sinning?
Praise be to Allaah.
Her sons’ and male relatives’ duty is to prevent her from committing haraam actions, and if the only way they could do that is by detaining her, then they should detain her. If it means that they have to tie her up, then they should tie her up. But the son should not beat his mother, and with regard to treating her kindly, they have no right to do otherwise. It is not permissible for them to cut off ties with her so that she is free to do evil actions, rather they should try to prevent her from doing evil as much as possible. If she needs provision and clothing they should provide that for her. And it is not permissible for them to carry out the hadd punishment – execution or otherwise – on her, and they will be sinning if they do that.
[Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 34/177-178]
It was narrated that Buraydah ibn al-Haseeb said: A woman from Ghaamid, a branch of al-Azd, came and said: “O Messenger of Allaah, purify me!” He said, “Woe to you! Go back and seek the forgiveness of Allaah and repent to Him.” She said: “I think that you intend to send me back as you sent Maa’iz ibn Maalik back.” He said, “What has happened to you?” She said that she had become pregnant as a result of zina. He said: “Is it you (who has done that)?” She said: “Yes.” He said to her: “(You will not be punished) until you give birth to that which is in your womb.” A man from among the Ansaar sponsored her [i.e., paid for her needs etc] until she delivered (the child). Then he (that Ansaari) came to the Prophet and said: “The Ghaamidi woman has given birth to a child.” He (the Prophet ) said: “Then we will not stone her and so leave her child with no one to nurse him.” One of the Ansaar stood up and said: “O Messenger of Allaah, let me be responsible for ensuring that he is nursed.” Then she was stoned to death.
http://islamqa.info/en/ref/8980Singapore: oppresses Muslims, bans athaan, bans hijab in schools, prevents building of madrassahs or muslim schools, puts limit on the percentage of Muslims allowed in each apartment building, and bans Muslims from joining Singapore's elite military forces. Singapore; Israel's best buddy!
14-Jul-2012 05:02 PMSingapore: oppresses Muslims, bans athaan, bans hijab in schools, prevents building of madrassahs or muslim schools, puts limit on the percentage of Muslims allowed in each apartment building, and bans Muslims from joining Singapore's elite military forces. Singapore; Israel's best buddy!
14-Jul-2012 06:45 PM
- Join Date
- Mar 2010
Thank you falah. If you can give a book/chapter reference, that will be great.
17-Jul-2012 03:16 AM
Ibn al-Qayyim mentions it in I'laam ul Muwaqqi'een 'an Rabb il 'Aalameen 91
17-Jul-2012 03:40 AM
If you want to see an example of how the Western media lies and misrepresents Muslims here is an example
17-Jul-2012 07:40 PM
- Join Date
- Sep 2010
Perhaps you should look at this site Falah, I find it personally distressing.
17-Jul-2012 07:51 PM
- Join Date
- Mar 2010
^hahaha, a western propaganda site that is supposedly "evidence" against Muslims. But of course such damages could not be due to natural causes, accidents, or indeed kafir occupying forces actions! Just plaster a picture of an injury and write "Afghan woman tortured by husband"! Who's going to check, ay?
The Following User Says Thank You to Abu Coburg For This Useful Post: