[GentlieGant]

It sounds like some of us modern people want to apply the punishment, when Rasulullah had a sahabi woman confess to him he wanted to abstain from the punishment, turning his face away and asking her to come back later.

yes it is unfortunate we so easily become bloodthirsty and forget what the Prophet (saws) actually exemplified. Rajm is a deterrent - that's why it requires four witnesses.

[leflyCode]

It sounds like some of us modern people want to apply the punishment, when Rasulullah had a sahabi woman confess to him he wanted to abstain from the punishment, turning his face away and asking her to come back later.

yet it was applied by the direct orders of Rasulullah (SAW). do you deny that?
i don't understand why you don't mail a dar ul ifta - i honestly do not get the purpose of this thread.

[dahlilaninfo]

I think what he is referring to is the issue of enthusiasm for it brother. Prophet (saws) obviously wanted to dissuade people from coming forwards to own up for it if they did not have too and on more than one occasion and told them to go away and repent and seek Allah forgiveness and beyond that he tried to find excuses for them where possible.

But nowadays it is often seemingly done without proper evidence in some places, is sometimes applied to cases that do not meet the criteria for it and in some places it is used for the poor but not for the rich and influential (this occurred with the Jews before too) or it is used for resident workers but not usually for citizens (as in some Gulf states) etc.

people have to be pretty blatant in their zina to allow four witnesses to spot it. From this a lot of learned people are telling us that Rajm is primarily a deterrent.

[smazibummigue]

It sounds like some of us modern people want to apply the punishment, when Rasulullah had a sahabi woman confess to him he wanted to abstain from the punishment, turning his face away and asking her to come back later.

It was because the lady was pregnant. The Prophet held off the punishment until after she delivered the baby. But in the end, the punishment was carried out.

[Gilowero]

I think what he is referring to is the issue of enthusiasm for it brother. Prophet (saws) obviously wanted to dissuade people from coming forwards to own up for it if they did not have too and on more than one occasion and told them to go away and repent and seek Allah forgiveness and beyond that he tried to find excuses for them where possible.

But nowadays it is often seemingly done without proper evidence in some places, is sometimes applied to cases that do not meet the criteria for it and in some places it is used for the poor but not for the rich and influential (this occurred with the Jews before too) or it is used for resident workers but not usually for citizens (as in some Gulf states) etc.

people have to be pretty blatant in their zina to allow four witnesses to spot it. From this a lot of learned people are telling us that Rajm is primarily a deterrent.

This is true. In some countries this penalty is carried out unjustly, and many innocent people die.

Allah Most Merciful has set the criteria for rajm to be so strict that it should very rarely be carried out. Unfortunately, people dont care about the rules anymore and sentence people to rajm here and there without even a proper court case.

[vdw4Epsi]

yet it was applied by the direct orders of Rasulullah (SAW). do you deny that?
i don't understand why you don't mail a dar ul ifta - i honestly do not get the purpose of this thread.

No, but not exposing ones sins when Allah has hidden it is also part of Islam. Why do you not get the purpose of the thread? It is a Islamic ruling and I wanted to clarify its conditions.

The salafus Salih also applied all the laws of Islam, including the ban on Riba. The governments who carry out rajm today are lax and liberal on riba, so they are hypocritical. Very few Muslims today consider riba to be a major crime...because it is everywhere we are encouraged to accept it as normal....when we should be all trying our utmost to identify it and to replace it with the halal. Riba is the root cause of many of the problems we have and Muslim governments that do it and also practice rajm are doing a massive injustice this needs to be highlighted. The jurists who sit in judgement in these countries should tell their governments that riba is a crime and it must be stopped.

[varrozans]

No, but not exposing ones sins when Allah has hidden it is also part of Islam. Why do you not get the purpose of the thread? It is a Islamic ruling and I wanted to clarify its conditions.

The salafus Salih also applied all the laws of Islam, including the ban on Riba. The governments who carry out rajm today are lax and liberal on riba, so they are hypocritical. Very few Muslims today consider riba to be a major crime...because it is everywhere we are encouraged to accept it as normal....when we should be all trying our utmost to identify it and to replace it with the halal. Riba is the root cause of many of the problems we have and Muslim governments that do it and also practice rajm are doing a massive injustice this needs to be highlighted. The jurists who sit in judgement in these countries should tell their governments that riba is a crime and it must be stopped.

in many kitabs i have read where the amir or khalifa refuses to take testimony on adultery,they ask the matter to be kept between the accused and allah s.w.t.
also in a book by shaykh hakeem akhtar saheb d.b.

this is the extremist problem
the aim is not the rajm,the aim is deterrent
and many so called shariah microstates are just not on shariah
i have even read that most ironically the first people to be taken to task by imam mahdi will be these people who think they rule by shariah but in reality are ruling in love of power ,macro or micro level

AND ALLAH KNOWS BEST

[Evelinessa]

The salafus Salih also applied all the laws of Islam, including the ban on Riba. The governments who carry out rajm today are lax and liberal on riba, so they are hypocritical. Very few Muslims today consider riba to be a major crime...because it is everywhere we are encouraged to accept it as normal....when we should be all trying our utmost to identify it and to replace it with the halal. Riba is the root cause of many of the problems we have and Muslim governments that do it and also practice rajm are doing a massive injustice this needs to be highlighted. The jurists who sit in judgement in these countries should tell their governments that riba is a crime and it must be stopped.

bro.

I m not implying to carry out rajm in a non-shariah based state.

But just because people reject Riba, bro we should reject rajm?
You say Riba is the root cause of many problems, isn't Zina a major cause of problems in our present society?
Yesterday people rejected riba, today people want to reject rajm, tomorrow something else.

Bro do you know a person who is stoned to death is actually experiencing a HUGE MERCY of Allah Ta'ala. It is a valid opinion that after the hadd punishment that person is NO LONGER held account for that sin in the AKHIRAH. Compare stoning to death to the dreaded punishment in Jahannam....! We should understand the hikmah of the laws of shariah in our mind bro.


Allahu alam.

[venediene]

Brother

No I am not saying reject rajam, but at least apply the conditions for its application, and have some mercy, do not try to spy on people or catch them, Allah has hidden some sins and neither the government or other Muslims are authorised to pick out and search for the sins of others. It is between them and Allah . Allah did not say that tawba is only accepted if rajam is done. The law of rajam is more a deterrent to stop Muslims falling into zina because the law of rajm makes it a very high price to pay. Most fuqaha say that rajm does not mean that the guilty is forgiven. I would even say that this is a victimless crime no one is harmed it is one of the rights of Allah that have been broken, but of course the rights of the other partner in the marriage have also been broken, so it is not strictly a victimless crime.

I think riba causes zina, family problems, conflict etc. in societies. If people have money problems they will work longer, feel pressure husband and wife might become distant and soon they are looking somewhere else for affection. Riba is the root cause and a major major sin that should not be taken lightly, it is worse that zina because it affects everyone widely.

bro.

I m not implying to carry out rajm in a non-shariah based state.

But just because people reject Riba, bro we should reject rajm?
You say Riba is the root cause of many problems, isn't Zina a major cause of problems in our present society?
Yesterday people rejected riba, today people want to reject rajm, tomorrow something else.

Bro do you know a person who is stoned to death is actually experiencing a HUGE MERCY of Allah Ta'ala. It is a valid opinion that after the hadd punishment that person is NO LONGER held account for that sin in the AKHIRAH. Compare stoning to death to the dreaded punishment in Jahannam....! We should understand the hikmah of the laws of shariah in our mind bro.


Allahu alam.

[kabelshik]

I think what he is referring to is the issue of enthusiasm for it brother. Prophet (saws) obviously wanted to dissuade people from coming forwards to own up for it if they did not have too and on more than one occasion and told them to go away and repent and seek Allah forgiveness and beyond that he tried to find excuses for them where possible.

But nowadays it is often seemingly done without proper evidence in some places, is sometimes applied to cases that do not meet the criteria for it and in some places it is used for the poor but not for the rich and influential (this occurred with the Jews before too) or it is used for resident workers but not usually for citizens (as in some Gulf states) etc.

people have to be pretty blatant in their zina to allow four witnesses to spot it. From this a lot of learned people are telling us that Rajm is primarily a deterrent.

Subhanallah. Exactly right.

[Quigoxito]

in many kitabs i have read where the amir or khalifa refuses to take testimony on adultery,they ask the matter to be kept between the accused and allah s.w.t.
also in a book by shaykh hakeem akhtar saheb d.b.

this is the extremist problem
the aim is not the rajm,the aim is deterrent
and many so called shariah microstates are just not on shariah
i have even read that most ironically the first people to be taken to task by imam mahdi will be these people who think they rule by shariah but in reality are ruling in love of power ,macro or micro level

AND ALLAH KNOWS BEST

kindly quote the view of the ahnaf regarding the application of rajm.
we will see what is shariah then.

[scoussysows]

Brother

No I am not saying reject rajam, but at least apply the conditions for its application, and have some mercy, do not try to spy on people or catch them,

i am sorry? do you think governments put tabs on people and spies are assigned to every person so that they can be caught as soon as they commit adultery?

Allah has hidden some sins and neither the government or other Muslims are authorised to pick out and search for the sins of others.

read what i said above.

It is between them and Allah . Allah did not say that tawba is only accepted if rajam is done.

then why did the sahabi confess to the Holy Prophet (PBUH)? why did he not do tawbah? why did the woman confess to the sin? why didnt she do tawbah only?

The law of rajam is more a deterrent to stop Muslims falling into zina because the law of rajm makes it a very high price to pay.

who has stated that or is it your own opinion?
and what do you mean by 'makes it a very bigh price to pay'? do you mean the kuffar media does not like it?

Most fuqaha say that rajm does not mean that the guilty is forgiven.

quote them here.

I would even say that this is a victimless crime no one is harmed it is one of the rights of Allah that have been broken, but of course the rights of the other partner in the marriage have also been broken, so it is not strictly a victimless crime.

you just contradicted yourself.

I think riba causes zina, family problems, conflict etc. in societies. If people have money problems they will work longer, feel pressure husband and wife might become distant and soon they are looking somewhere else for affection. Riba is the root cause and a major major sin that should not be taken lightly, it is worse that zina because it affects everyone widely.

do you even know what practical steps a government has to take to eradicate riba?
do you know how much time it can take?
im not denying that riba should be top on any government's agenda but do you want governments to declare they wont stone anyone till country is free of riba?
i do not know what problem you have with rajam. but you should seek help from scholars and quit this apologist argument.
i can also one day say that a government which imposed ban on music is wrong as riba should be eradicated first. someone can say i dont like qata yad and so it should only be implemented when riba is eradicated. thats because riba is more harmful than corruption.

you have been answered over this by brother abdul wahhab. if you have anything to the contrary bring proof from fuqaha that the government should suspend huddod like rajm until they eradicta riba.

[jokiruss]

But nowadays it is often seemingly done without proper evidence in some places,

please provide an example along with the procedure the court followed in coming to the conclusion that the evidence was 'proper'

is sometimes applied to cases that do not meet the criteria for it

again kindly quote an example of a court procedure where the criteria was not met.

and in some places it is used for the poor but not for the rich and influential (this occurred with the Jews before too) or it is used for resident workers but not usually for citizens (as in some Gulf states) etc.

some proof again please.
then again, didnt rasulAllah (SAW) ordered rajm without distinction of wealth while jews did not do that?
so how does it show that rajm should not be carried out?
people misuse the blasphemy law in pakistan. yet mufti naeem (a very prominent mufti) declared that the process to establish blasphemy be better handled NOT that blasphemy should not be carried out and is only a 'deterrent'.

people have to be pretty blatant in their zina to allow four witnesses to spot it. From this a lot of learned people are telling us that Rajm is primarily a deterrent.

and who are these learned people?

[Aw1HhC0m]

[QUOTE=mh16388;791111]

"i am sorry? do you think governments put tabs on people and spies are assigned to every person so that they can be caught as soon as they commit adultery?"

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.

then why did the sahabi confess to the Holy Prophet (PBUH)? I do not know her internal thoughts maybe she could not live with herself knowing that she had committed such a great wrong.

you just contradicted yourself. 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.

who has stated that or is it your own opinion? 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.

Most fuqaha say that rajm does not mean that the guilty is forgiven. 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?

do you want governments to declare they wont stone anyone till country is free of riba? Yes. It is clear that they have not found 4 witnesses to the act.

i do not know what problem you have with rajam. but you should seek help from scholars and quit this apologist argument. 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.

[KLIMOV25gyi]

Is this some rule that is well established and unchangable? Ofcourse not. It was evolved based on convenience. My reading also tells me that courts had judges from four madhabs.

where did you read that?
and why would we need judge of more than one madhab when their arent any adherents of other madhabs?
in pakistan there is only hanafi, ahle hadith. then there are sects and non-muslims.
in india there are hanafi, ahle hadith and shafi. and the sects and non-muslims.

to newer problems obviously ijtihad is to be applied by the qadhis and lawmakers. and ijtihad means there shouldnt be any taqleed.

there are other examples of this in governments which were islamic but not really shariah.
for example: in zia era the zakat was to be deducted from bank accounts.
however shias objected that its not allowed for shias. so the option was given that shias wont have it deducted from their accounts.

not everything needs to result in a clash. this is unfortunately not known to liberals.

I haven't read it but if there is some unambiguous proof that is not possible to be counter argued, then you can point it out here.

My point simply was based on the context of time where shariah state should start by applying what is most evident and well established and agreed; rather than applying ijthihad of every mufti here and there. The state should function in a manner that is consistent and built on strong principles and not act upon speculative ijthihad of every new mufti. Just because some past scholar allowed a certain dress color code for dhimmis don't mean a certain mufti can say "hey this scholar allowed it, so are you smarter than him? " and then apply dress color code to identify dhmmis. That is equivalent to salafis who fetch for opinions without any principles.

i think the way the state should be run is given very comprehensively in al ahkam as sultaniyyah.
there are leeways and one can avail them.

for example in describing the rights of dhimmis the following point are recommended:
- they should be asked to drink their wine indoors and not in front of Muslims and should not display their crosses or allow their pigs to be seen openly.

this can be either taken or not depending upon condition of country. there are multiple opinions on other topics and the government can choose any of the options. the rulings dont have to conform to every madhab.

[DF9sLGSU]

kindly quote the view of the ahnaf regarding the application of rajm.
we will see what is shariah then.

POST the question to shaykh hakeem akhtar saheb ..http://www.khanqah.org/
WHY he wrote in one of his many kitabs about the matter being left between the sinner and allah


as brother abu zakir .i too will not reply


AND ALLAH KNOWS BEST

[DialOne]

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.

[Lymneterfeiff]

POST the question to shaykh hakeem akhtar saheb ..http://www.khanqah.org/
WHY he wrote in one of his many kitabs about the matter being left between the sinner and allah


as brother abu zakir .i too will not reply


AND ALLAH KNOWS BEST

you were speaking as if you knew shariah.
and is this site a dar ul ifta?

getting emotional does not help. when you say something that is blatantly sectarian then kindly defend it as well or retract your statement.

[Optipitle]

Brother Mh16388 you are too charged up on this issue. Calm down a little please.

[geraint.faughn]

758. Abu'l-Haytham said, "Some people came to 'Uqba ibn 'Amir and said, 'We have some neighbours who drink (wine) and behave incorrectly. Shall we bring them before the ruler?' 'No,' he replied, 'I heard the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, say, "Whoever sees the fault of a Muslim and then veils it, it is as if he brought girl buried alive back to life from her grave.''" (Source: Adab al Mufrad)