DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**DialOne** · 07-11-2012, 03:53 AM

No not spies assigned to every person. This is descending into a stupid argument. People watching others for any wrongdoing, ready to pounce an atmosphere of surveillance. Also gossip and falsley accusing someone are serious crimes in the Shariah, if a man accuses another of adultery and cannot produce 4 witnesses to prove it, he is whipped for slander and bringing dishonour to someone. I was replying to someone in this thread who said they would use DNA evidence to find someone guilty of adultery...which I found horrific...that Muslims would use this to try to catch people. I am sure the Prophet would disapprove. When Umar (RA) jumped over someone wall when he over heard them doing something wrong, the man told Umar he had commited 2 wrongs one that he had been listening to their private conversation, 2 that he entered his compound uninvited, Umar (RA) apologised and left. Islam respects privacy, spying on people is not allowed.

what if a wife lodges a case in police that her husband has been sleeping around?

Please...everything is not black and white..is the other partner of the adulterer a true victim? Maybe maybe not, it is not clear cut, like murder or theft where there are clear cut victims. Victimless crimes should not really be investigated.

even in murder there aren't always clear cut victims and aggressor. the hair splitting done over killing in self-defense is evidence to that.

It is obvious from the conditions mentioned in the OP, making it almost impossible to find anyone guilty. You should be able to deduce this yourself.

no. it isnt obvious im afraid. i think i asked for the rulings of fuqaha for a reason.

No I cannot quote them, ask an alim yourself if rajm gurantees forgiveness of the accused. You should also ask them if a scholar can give you permission to pour acid over a woman who does not wear hijab. This is your Islam? Islam teaches that when you slaughter an animal to eat it, use a sharp knife and do not unnecessarily distress the animal...and you think it could be acceptable to pour acid on a womans face because she does not do hijab?

this post like this thread is emotional and not academical. why on earth have you brought acid victims into this? when have i or any scholar declared this to be halal?
you have made assertions about shariah and fuqaha. you need to bring proof not me.

I have heard scholars say what I am saying already (Ian Dallas). You seem very keen on wanting to get on with the job of stoning adulterers, so keen in fact that you think my discussion here is somehow trying to prevent you from this. I have now finished discussing this subject and will not reply to more of your posts. If you think rajm can be applied as you think it can than please do so, and do not let my 'apologetic' discussion of it here stop you.

i am merely demonstrating that you do not know what you are talking about. i prefer sticking to the opinion of madhabs over rajm rather than an opinion outside of it. and this is what is recommended by scholars. if what you are saying is within any madhab then show it in writing.

07-11-2012, 03:53 AM	#37
DialOne Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 454 Senior Member	No not spies assigned to every person. This is descending into a stupid argument. People watching others for any wrongdoing, ready to pounce an atmosphere of surveillance. Also gossip and falsley accusing someone are serious crimes in the Shariah, if a man accuses another of adultery and cannot produce 4 witnesses to prove it, he is whipped for slander and bringing dishonour to someone. I was replying to someone in this thread who said they would use DNA evidence to find someone guilty of adultery...which I found horrific...that Muslims would use this to try to catch people. I am sure the Prophet would disapprove. When Umar (RA) jumped over someone wall when he over heard them doing something wrong, the man told Umar he had commited 2 wrongs one that he had been listening to their private conversation, 2 that he entered his compound uninvited, Umar (RA) apologised and left. Islam respects privacy, spying on people is not allowed. what if a wife lodges a case in police that her husband has been sleeping around? Please...everything is not black and white..is the other partner of the adulterer a true victim? Maybe maybe not, it is not clear cut, like murder or theft where there are clear cut victims. Victimless crimes should not really be investigated. even in murder there aren't always clear cut victims and aggressor. the hair splitting done over killing in self-defense is evidence to that. It is obvious from the conditions mentioned in the OP, making it almost impossible to find anyone guilty. You should be able to deduce this yourself. no. it isnt obvious im afraid. i think i asked for the rulings of fuqaha for a reason. No I cannot quote them, ask an alim yourself if rajm gurantees forgiveness of the accused. You should also ask them if a scholar can give you permission to pour acid over a woman who does not wear hijab. This is your Islam? Islam teaches that when you slaughter an animal to eat it, use a sharp knife and do not unnecessarily distress the animal...and you think it could be acceptable to pour acid on a womans face because she does not do hijab? this post like this thread is emotional and not academical. why on earth have you brought acid victims into this? when have i or any scholar declared this to be halal? you have made assertions about shariah and fuqaha. you need to bring proof not me. I have heard scholars say what I am saying already (Ian Dallas). You seem very keen on wanting to get on with the job of stoning adulterers, so keen in fact that you think my discussion here is somehow trying to prevent you from this. I have now finished discussing this subject and will not reply to more of your posts. If you think rajm can be applied as you think it can than please do so, and do not let my 'apologetic' discussion of it here stop you. i am merely demonstrating that you do not know what you are talking about. i prefer sticking to the opinion of madhabs over rajm rather than an opinion outside of it. and this is what is recommended by scholars. if what you are saying is within any madhab then show it in writing.
	Quote