To see the complete version, go to this link :
http://nationalpostnews.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/1119stoningfinal.jpg
the message board for Dubai English speaking community
Criticism
On May 19, 2006, the newspaper ran two pieces alleging that the Iranian parliament had passed a law requiring religious minorities to wear special identifying badges. One piece was a front page news item titled "IRAN EYES BADGES FOR JEWS" accompanied by a 1935 picture of two Jews bearing Nazi-ordered yellow badges. Later on the same day, experts began coming forward to deny the accuracy of the Post story. The story proved to be false, but not before it had been picked up by a variety of other news media and generated comment from world leaders. Comments on the story by the Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper caused Iran to summon Canada's ambassador to Tehran for an explanation.
On May 24, 2006, the editor-in-chief of the newspaper, Doug Kelly, published an apology for the story on Page 2, admitting that it was false and the National Post had not exercised enough caution or checked enough sources.[13]
Since 1998, the Canadian Islamic Congress has been actively monitoring media coverage for anti-Muslim or anti-Islam sentiment and has issued reports highlighting its findings. It has opposed the use of phrases such as "Islamic guerrillas," "Islamic insurgency" and "Muslim militants" saying that terms like "militant" or "terrorist" should be used without a religious association "since no religion teaches or endorses terrorism, militancy or extremism."[14] The Congress has singled out the National Post, saying the paper "consistently is No. 1" as an anti-Islam media outlet.[15]
I'm struggling to understand why the paper that put together the graphic and the commentary 'has nothing to do with the topic'.
Perhaps they are accurate this time and aren't sensationalising or making things up, but their track record isn't good on 1. accuracy and 2. being balanced when it comes to Islam.
As for the fact that stoning is not in the Quran - that's a simple fact. The instances of stoning to be found in the Hadith are instances where the earlier Biblical commandments were being carried out.
Well personally I don't see a problem with the graphic, it always state Iranian Law and does not confuse it or claims it to be Islamic law, I didn't read the article so can't comment what it says. Iran although wishes it was an Islamic state it is not and none of its so called Islamic laws even.
melika969 wrote:Well personally I don't see a problem with the graphic, it always state Iranian Law and does not confuse it or claims it to be Islamic law, I didn't read the article so can't comment what it says. Iran although wishes it was an Islamic state it is not and none of its so called Islamic laws even.
So you are implying that stoning in Islam has some different steps from stoning in Iran? can you please carify how?
melika969 wrote:The four witnesses and the self confessions are true. They must be done then the sotning wil happen. and It is all considered in Iran's law as well
As this graph has come from Iran's law, which is based on Islamic laws, the articles and their numbers are related to them, so no need to relate it to any Hadith.
relating it to Shia, was a very weak argument, as it is very well known act in Sunni and shia, both of them. Just look at SA, it is a sunni country and and they are doing it as well.
Plus like I said the graphics detailed steps are also not to be found anywhere either so the steps mentioned are also not Islamic but Iranian. Hence I don't disagree with the graphic when it says its Iranian and not Islamic. Although I am taking it at face value without cross checking the steps illustrated are part of the official procedure.
melika969 wrote:There is no doubt that Shia and Sunni is different, I m not gonna debate on which is better, becasue both are BS to me. As the topic of this thread is stoning, it is valid in both Shia And Sunni. It is a law in Indonesia, Iraq, Sudan,Nigeria, Sumalia, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, based on Islamic laws. and again it is valid for both sectors.Plus like I said the graphics detailed steps are also not to be found anywhere either so the steps mentioned are also not Islamic but Iranian. Hence I don't disagree with the graphic when it says its Iranian and not Islamic. Although I am taking it at face value without cross checking the steps illustrated are part of the official procedure.
If you can't find the Islamic steps for stoning in your googling, I dont blame you! The steps are devised by early time scholars who interpret it from Hadith and Quran ( FYI, there is a debate that there was a verse in Quran, named "Rajam" dedictaed to stoning, which was removed later) So if you want to read and know more about steps in different procedures you need to read other resources, maybe you need to learn Arabic.
desertdudeshj wrote:For the sake of argument I'll agree it is a valid punnishment and as I said certain almost impossible creteria have to fulliled and if countries like your totaly choose to ignore those there is nothing I can do about it.
melika969 wrote:The four witnesses and the self confessions are true. They must be done then the sotning wil happen. and It is all considered in Iran's law as well.
desertdudeshj wrote:And your question was to show you how those depicted in the graphic were different from said Islamic laws.
desertdudeshj wrote:Thats what I am talking about, you have to show that the steps illustrated are part of Islamic law. I told you why they are not so ( read my earlier posts ), now its your turn.
melika969 wrote:desertdudeshj wrote:Thats what I am talking about, you have to show that the steps illustrated are part of Islamic law. I told you why they are not so ( read my earlier posts ), now its your turn.
What?!! which reasons? when did you say any reasons???
Again, I have to repeat, these steps shown in this graph are about the stoning day, do you see any difference from steps in conducting the stoning between the Iranian way and Islamic way?
The person need to confess themselves, then the judge can go trough all this, but we are not debating that here. This is the third time I am stating it, yes it is needed to be self confessed, in Islam and in Iran law.
An alien from outer space visted me last night and I played chess with him all night long. Now prove this didn't happen. This is the logic you are using. I made a claim now I have to prove if indeed I had extra terrestrial visitors, not you. Get what I'm saying ?
As for the fact that stoning is not in the Quran - that's a simple fact. The instances of stoning to be found in the Hadith are instances where the earlier Biblical commandments were being carried out. The Quran is clear what the punishments for adultery and fornication are - and the level of proof that is required.
either before the Quranic verses were revealed about lashes or as punishments for those who follow the Biblical laws.
Book 017, Number 4191:
'Ubada b. as-Samit reported: Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Receive (teaching) from me, receive (teaching) from me. Allah has ordained a way for those (women). When an unmarried male commits adultery with an unmarried female (they should receive) one hundred lashes and banishment for one year. And in case of married male committing adultery with a married female, they shall receive one hundred lashes and be stoned to death.
Book 017, Number 4192:
'Ubada b. as-Samit reported that whenever Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) received revelation, he felt its rigour and the complexion of his face changed. One day revelation descended upon him, he felt the same rigour. When it was over and he felt relief, he said: Take from me. Verily Allah has ordained a way for them (the women who commit fornication),: (When) a married man (commits adultery) with a married woman, and an unmarried male with an unmarried woman, then in case of married (persons) there is (a punishment) of one hundred lashes and then stoning (to death). And in case of unmarried persons, (the punishment) is one hundred lashes and exile for one year.
Mawḍūʻ
A hadith that is mawḍūʻ, (مَوْضُوْع), is one determined to be fabricated and cannot be attributed to its origin. Al-Dhahabi defines mawḍūʻ as a hadith the text of which contradicts established norms of the Prophet's sayings, or its reporters include a liar,
Recognizing fabricated hadith
Some of these hadith were known to be spurious by the confession of their inventors. For example, Muhammad ibn Sa`id al-Maslub used to say, "It is not wrong to fabricate an isnād for a sound statement." Another notorious inventor, `Abd al-Karim Abu 'l-Auja, who was killed and crucified by Muhammad ibn Sulaiman ibn `Ali, governor of Basra, admitted that he had fabricated four thousand hadith declaring lawful the prohibited and vice-versa.
Mawḍūʻ narrations are also recognised by external evidence related to a discrepancy found in the dates or times of a particular incident. For example, when the second caliph, Umar ibn al-Khattab decided to expel the Jews from Khaybar, some Jewish dignitaries brought a document to Umar apparently proving that the Prophet had intended that they stay there by exempting them from the jizya (tax on non-Muslims under the rule of Muslims); the document carried the witness of two companions, Sa'd ibn Mua'dh and Mu'awiyah ibn Abi Sufyan. Umar rejected the document outright, knowing that it was fabricated because the conquest of Khaybar took place in 6 AH, whereas Sa'd ibn Mua'dh died in 3 AH just after the Battle of the Trench, and Mu'awiyah embraced Islam in 8 AH, after the conquest of Mecca.
Causes of fabrication
There are several factors which may motivate an individual to fabricate a narration, from them:
political differences
factions based on issues of creed
fabrications by heretics
fabrications by story-tellers
fabrications by ignorant ascetics
prejudice in favour of town, race or a particular leader
inventions for personal motives
proverbs turned into hadith
punishment that the Jews of Arabia and elsewhere were carrying out
(recall that even the NT recounts how Jesus intervened in a stoning of a prostitute - had he not come along the lady would have been killed).
Secondly, the fact remains that the Quran does not give stoning as a punishment for s.ex outside marriage. The only punishment in there is 100 lashes
As for the instances in Hadith of the punishment actually being carried out - I repeat, these took place either before the Quranic verses were revealed or administered to those who followed Judaic laws (i.e. Jews).
Return to Philosophy and Religion Forums