[sportlife]

Again, in Christian doctrine God released man from the Old Testament Laws and replaced them with the New Testament covenant.

Thus, what God allowed back then is forbidden now.

Yeah, I KNOW that and I am not disputing that this is what Christians believe. But they believe that God commanded it at least for a limited period of time, yes?

If so, why was it NOT barbaric then? Will they be able to explain? NO, they will just say it was not barbaric. And then we say, why was it not barbaric when YOU claim God commanded it, but it is barbaric when WE say God commanded it?

[9uWzBx4l]

Yeah, I KNOW that and I am not disputing that this is what Christians believe. But they believe that God commanded it at least for a limited period of time, yes?

If so, why was it NOT barbaric then? Will they be able to explain? NO, they will just say it was not barbaric. And then we say, why was it not barbaric when YOU claim God commanded it, but it is barbaric when WE say God commanded it?

Brother they will say that ancient people lived a harsh barbaric life.

And that God was dealing with people that way because he was trying to bring them out of barbarism.

Much like how the people of Mecca were during the time of jahillyyah.

And that now people are in modern times those methods are considered barbaric; and even God has ruled them to be barbaric for today.

[draigenia]

Brother they will say that ancient people lived a harsh barbaric life.

And that God was dealing with people that way because he was trying to bring them out of barbarism.

Much like how the people of Mecca were during the time of jahillyyah.

And that now people are in modern times those methods are considered barbaric; and even God has ruled them to be barbaric for today.

By claiming as such, they will claim that God dealt with barbaric tribes with barbaric punishments. If they claim something so illogical, then I think the dawah has been done and there is no need for anything further to that (since how can an illogical person be convinced of anything he does not want to believe?). It answers the question of the OP I think (i.e how to answer them) but convincing them is not in our hands. Allah guides whom He wills and leaves astray whom He wills

[Anaedilla]

It still is very high, I did read it and the figures but nevertheless posted the link to show you that it is high and controversial. Evolution Theory is also used to explain it...we are animals, to survive a woman needs to find a provider type man who will give security and stability to the woman, however it is better if she gets impregnated by an alpha male, so this is what women are driven to do by their genetics. etc etc.

You really should read what you are posting as evidence before embarrassing yourself again.

From your own site that you linked:

"A 2005 scientific review of international published studies of paternal discrepancy found a range in incidence from 0.8% to 30% (median 3.7%, with half of the academic studies on the subject, i.e. eight, yielding rates from  2.0% to 9.6%), suggesting that the widely quoted and unsubstantiated figure of 10% of non-paternal events is an overestimate.


Proving that your 40% claim was basically hot air.

[frequensearules]

By claiming as such, they will claim that God dealt with barbaric tribes with barbaric punishments. If they claim something so illogical, then I think the dawah has been done and there is no need for anything further to that (since how can an illogical person be convinced of anything he does not want to believe?). It answers the question of the OP I think (i.e how to answer them) but convincing them is not in our hands. Allah guides whom He wills and leaves astray whom He wills.

Brother effective dawa is far more complicated than trying to defeat your religious opponent in a single issue theological argument.

Just saying..........

[Oberjej]

Evolution Theory is also used to explain it...we are animals, to survive a woman needs to find a provider type man who will give security and stability to the woman, however it is better if she gets impregnated by an alpha male, so this is what women are driven to do by their genetics. etc etc.

You sure that you want to keep digging that hole deeper brother?

Again, I assume that you have a well researched scientific genetic study LINK to back up your "woman needs an Alpha male so bad that she will do anything" claim?

[ErubTiereedig]

How to explain to them it's not as barbaric as they may think. They might just accept 80 lashes for fornication.

It depends what type of non-Muslim you are talking to. Unless they are religious - which is rather rare depending on where you live - most ascribe to secular humanism.

Anywhoo, let's try and answer your question. Starting with the definition of barbaric:

bar·bar·ic
Adjective:
Savagely cruel; exceedingly brutal.
Primitive; unsophisticated. As you can see, everything in that definition is subjective. It is subjective to one's values and world-view. All of you are going about explaining this in the wrong way. You should clear the field and admit the following:
Yes this punishment in Islam is at conflict with modern values and is indeed barbaric according to the latest iteration of values and morality based on secular humanism.
Yes, stoning those who have sex outside of marriage is essentially punishing individuals for committing an act in private, consensualy, which in many cases may not harm the life liberty or property of a third party.
But, it is a crime against Allaah's laws at the very least, and arguably a crime against society (birth outside the commitment of marriage, destroying families thru fornication/cheating, etc ...).
You see according to Islam's perspective, it doesn't matter even if it could be hypothetically guaranteed that there be no adverse effects on society (and hence justification according to secular law for punishment). The fact that Allaah swt deemed it to be immoral, makes it immoral and worthy of punishment.
Any explanations are merely wisdoms, that may or may not be true for every case.
Once this is clear, the argumentation stops and the kaafir starts to listen.

[Lxbsvksl]

Isn't Jesus supposed to have said let the man who is sinless cast the first stone? When he was being tested by the Pharasee Jews? They wanted to trap Jesus by getting him to deny stoning as a punishment, or to carry it out and get himself in trouble for saying he had come to change the law of the tawra and make it more merciful.

Salam alikum, so I think the same, here is full text:
John 8:3-11
King James Version (KJV)

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.

... there is no refusal of law of stoning. It seems the witnesses werent present or they were corrupted, or ashamed of their own sinning.

[Xlkl9SFd]

Forget "barbaric" and all these juggalary with words. Its about explaining why the punishment for adultery is harsh as that. The mindset of those growing in secular liberal world is to see adultery as just a personal boundary promise breaking between two people and not really a big deal beyond that. And they see no reason why put to death and end the life, instead of giving a chance to repent. They also are soft hearted to ever gang up and stone a adulter. Ill also admit that I'm also not ready to stone anyone myself although I accept the punishment.

If the mindset is to be changed there has to be strong reasoning used to back it up beyond just dogmatic adherence. Dogmatic adherence is a ttest for Muslims but to explain to the non-muslim outside world you need more than just "Quran and Bible said so" argument.

And it is not just the case of stoning, the modern thinking would find hell as a similar cruel torture chamber. No Muslim has yet written books and accumulated knowledge to defend the reality of hell.

Also those who say that stoning would rarely happen and not big deal should do more to convince if they think that's the case. The thugs claiming to be upholding shariah has already a stoned a couple in Mali. So how rare are we talking bout when we say rare ?

Is there any book that records the total number of stoning cases ever in mulims history ?

[Audi_z]

Forget "barbaric" and all these juggalary with words. Its about explaining why the punishment for adultery is harsh as that. The mindset of those growing in secular liberal world is to see adultery as just a personal boundary promise breaking between two people and not really a big deal beyond that. And they see no reason why put to death and end the life, instead of giving a chance to repent. They also are soft hearted to ever gang up and stone a adulter. Ill also admit that I'm also not ready to stone anyone myself although I accept the punishment.

If the mindset is to be changed there has to be strong reasoning used to back it up beyond just dogmatic adherence. Dogmatic adherence is a ttest for Muslims but to explain to the non-muslim outside world you need more than just "Quran and Bible said so" argument.

And it is not just the case of stoning, the modern thinking would find hell as a similar cruel torture chamber. No Muslim has yet written books and accumulated knowledge to defend the reality of hell.

Also those who say that stoning would rarely happen and not big deal should do more to convince if they think that's the case. The thugs claiming to be upholding shariah has already a stoned a couple in Mali. So how rare are we talking bout when we say rare ?

Is there any book that records the total number of stoning cases ever in mulims history ?

was the stoning in Mali according to sharia?
as I know at time of Muhammd PBUH there was only 2 cases of stoning and one of them was woman who insisted on confessing herself

[GWRIeEQp]

was the stoning in Mali according to sharia?
as I know at time of Muhammd PBUH there was only 2 cases of stoning and one of them was woman who insisted on confessing herself

Details are sketchy to make any comment:
http://www.thenational.ae/news/world...-death-in-mali

[bjacogaerllyo]

Details are sketchy to make any comment:
http://www.thenational.ae/news/world...-death-in-mali

Only it was not mentioned if couple were muslims, supposing they were...
Is law applicable on non-muslims too?
w alikum assalam

[st01en_lox]

You sure that you want to keep digging that hole deeper brother?

Again, I assume that you have a well researched scientific genetic study LINK to back up your "woman needs an Alpha male so bad that she will do anything" claim?

Here you go

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/hase...seltonARSR.pdf

You just need to read the first 2 short paragraphs if you wish


http://www.psy.cmu.edu/~rakison/bussandschmitt.pdf

On the first page of this one second row gives you lots of information including estimates of adultery among American married couples in 1991...26%-70% for women and 33%-75% for men.

[Eunatis]

Forget "barbaric" and all these juggalary with words. Its about explaining why the punishment for adultery is harsh as that. The mindset of those growing in secular liberal world is to see adultery as just a personal boundary promise breaking between two people and not really a big deal beyond that. And they see no reason why put to death and end the life, instead of giving a chance to repent. They also are soft hearted to ever gang up and stone a adulter. Ill also admit that I'm also not ready to stone anyone myself although I accept the punishment. To put someone to death for adultery would be very rare if the law was really practiced. Some people are keen to start stoning and or chopping off hands of theives...usually however the Muslim leaders were moderate and enlightened enough to let cases go, knowing when it was appropriate to punish and when it was not.

If the mindset is to be changed there has to be strong reasoning used to back it up beyond just dogmatic adherence. Dogmatic adherence is a ttest for Muslims but to explain to the non-muslim outside world you need more than just "Quran and Bible said so" argument. No real need for that in my opinion...adultery is bad it wrecks families and geneologies blood lines become confused. Therefore the harsh law exists to reflect this.

And it is not just the case of stoning, the modern thinking would find hell as a similar cruel torture chamber. No Muslim has yet written books and accumulated knowledge to defend the reality of hell. Yes why would a Merciful God put someone through a hellish torture just because they refused to believe in God. The fact is God does not want to do this and He gives plenty of warning to people, if people refuse to follow the guidence and want to believe that they are somehow immune from the punishment then it is their own fault.

Also those who say that stoning would rarely happen and not big deal should do more to convince if they think that's the case. The thugs claiming to be upholding shariah has already a stoned a couple in Mali. So how rare are we talking bout when we say rare ? Well Muslim scholars should really look into the case and show how it did not adhere to the conditions , or whether it did. It is rare because it is near impossible to have 4 witnesses to penetration.

Is there any book that records the total number of stoning cases ever in mulims history ? I do not know.

[RarensussyRen]

These days non-Muslims have a habit of filming their private life and then it ends up on the Net! More than 4 people will view the video. Would they then be qualified to be stoned to death?!?!?

I am no scholar....but I presume the viewing of the act has to be with the naked eye. So digital videography may not be reliable evidence to stone someone. Allahu alam.
Also, AFAIK, the witnesses have to be upright. Most ppl who watch these dirty vids probably wouldn't be described as upright due to watching these vids. And any 'upright' individual who did watch them probably wouldn't come forward as a witness due to shame.


It would be interesting, as a purely academic exercise, to ask someone who has been cheated upon what they would like to see as a punishment for the one who cheated upon them.

But, of course, the bottom line is - the laws are from our Creator WHO KNOWS *BEST*.
And we submit to His Infinite Wisdom. Alhamdulillah.

[halfstreet]

Here you go

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/hase...seltonARSR.pdf

You just need to read the first 2 short paragraphs if you wish


http://www.psy.cmu.edu/~rakison/bussandschmitt.pdf

On the first page of this one second row gives you lots of information including estimates of adultery among American married couples in 1991...26%-70% for women and 33%-75% for men.

Brother your original allegation had to do with paternity. Not adultery.

Switching from one issue to another issue to make your case is disingenuous at best.

News Flash: Adultery does not automatically lead to paternity.

True story.........

[pouslytut]

Obviously adultery and paternity are related, I gave you the links because you wanted to have the source of the claim made by Evolutionary Biologists that women seek out alpha males.

Brother your original allegation had to do with paternity. Not adultery.

Switching from one issue to another issue to make your case is disingenuous at best.

News Flash: Adultery does not automatically lead to paternity.

True story.........

[Pipindula]

the reason why adulterers are stoned is because adultery causes the (nasal) generation, breed and family system to be destroyed which results in destruction of societies and thus civillisation. everywhere illigimate chidren are born and people dont know who their father is. u end up coming on jeremy kyle shows doing dna tests because the women has slept with 5 different men and doesnt know who the father of the baby is.

also societies where adultery spread and opens up like that of the west where the is open fornication, open cheating, swinger clubs, sex parties, sex shows, brothels, billion dollar porn industries, open public sex ect... these are societies of monkeys and swines and are no longer societies of civillised advanced human beings.

this is why stoning is carried out

[CGH1KZzy]

the west has desensitized the men and especially the women so that when they see a person of opposite gender that they are attracted to and only want physical relations, they can spend some time to woo them and then get what they wanted. and when one of them gets fed up it is time to leave.

some hundred years ago the same people (men i.e.) would have to commit assault or kidnapping to get the woman. now they have termed it dating and affair. the respect isn't there nor has the damage done to oneself and to others reduced. just name changed and the secular laws have put a stamp of 'bad but legal' on it.

[uC4F0NVL]

some hundred years ago the same people (men i.e.) would have to commit assault or kidnapping to get the woman. now they have termed it dating and affair.

That's quite a stretch don't ya think brother.........