For example punishing somebody for adultery requires 4 male witnesses who all see the sexual interc0urse take place. Watching people hump under a blanket doesn't count either, they also have to see the pe*is penetrating the v@gina. If the four witnesses are found to be lying they are punished and if by some miracle 4 men all at the same time witness penetration then mercy and a harsh talking to is the next option.

A perfect example of this mercy is the following hadith about the Prophet (pbuh) who encountered a man who confessed to adultery and wanted to be punished.

Zina = secs before marriage

Hudud = Islamic criminal law is not found in the Quran but in Hadiths

In the most famous case (there are six known instances) of the Prophet ordering a man stoned for adultery, the man comes to the Prophet and confesses his sin. The Prophet asks him if he is crazy, and when he continues to insist the Prophet suggests that perhaps he only kissed the woman. In order to prevent witnesses from assuming secs was occurring when perhaps the couple was just embracing or lying on top of one another, the Prophet required the witnesses to testify that"

fack me this reply is getting butchered

I'm here mate

they’d seen “his pe*is enter into her v@gina like an eyeliner applier entering into its container.” Because the man who confessed

Maiz, insisted on confessing four times to the Prophet , the majority of Muslim scholars require all confessions of zinā to be done four times. Anything less cannot be punished by the Hudud."

Are you trying to post on the live thread?

If so, try the other version, just in case that's the problem.

Basically the Prophet gave him escape routes out of punishment.

It goes on....

"Based on the same case of Māaiz, jurists agreed that even someone who had confessed to zinā could retract that confession at any point and no longer face the Hudud punishment. Finally, even external signs such as pregnancy were not considered proof that zina had occurred in the opinion of the majority of Muslim scholars. For example, if a woman’s husband had been away for years, he could have been miraculously transported to be with her. Or she could have been raped. The one school that did consider pregnancy determinative proof of zina (assuming the woman didn’t claim she had been raped) allowed the possibility that a woman could be pregnant for up to five years. Normally in the Shariah, such miraculous or fantastic claims would carry no weight in legal matters. But as possible ambiguities to prevent application of the Hudud, they were accepted.

This immense allowance for ambiguities in ruling on sexual offenses can be seen most clearly in the Hanafi school of law, which was the official school of the Ottoman Empire. When prostitutes and their clients were caught, they were not tried for zina due to the (admittedly outlandish) ambiguity that prostitution was structurally similar to marriage; both were exchanges of sexual access for money (in the case of marriage, the groom’s dowry payment).This is not because Muslim scholars had any sympathy for prostitution or a low regard for marriage, but rather because they hunted for any possible ambiguity to avoid implementing the Hudud."

This is from the first link below and I really, really, really suggest you click on the links below if you want real information on Islamic Sharia and further context.

It talks about all the punishments so if you are interested this material should be enlightening.

To Read

https://yaqeeninstitute.org/jonathan-brown/stoning-and-hand-cutting-understanding-the-hudud-and-the-shariah-in-islam/

To Watch

https://thedebateinitiative.com/2012/11/14/shariah-law-barbaric-or-misunderstood/

Ok I found out what was wrong, this site isn't reognising certain accents on the words so I deleted them. I have already spammed the site so I will copy and paste in full.

OP Please can you delete the rest to clean this place up a bit :/

comment by itsonlyagame (U6426)
posted 19 minutes ago
KFC, imo one of the things people in the West find most shocking are the lashings, amputations and stonings that are used to mete out justice in some countries.

Does the book either recommend or provide cover for these sorts of punishments?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This is one of the questions I asked my self when I was less clued up about Islam when I was younger. I found satisfying answers encourage mercy above punishment which is why I'm still a Muslim.

Yes the Quran mentions these punishments, for example it talks about stoning but what people never go onto to discover when judging the Quran is that these punishments are pretty much impossible to implement Islamically.

These punishments exist to discourage certain acts.

For example punishing somebody for adultery requires 4 male witnesses who all see the sexual interc0urse take place. Watching people hump under a blanket doesn't count either, they also have to see the pe*is penetrating the v@gina. If the four witnesses are found to be lying they are punished and if by some miracle 4 men all at the same time witness penetration then mercy and a harsh talking to is the next option.

A perfect example of this mercy is the following hadith about the Prophet (pbuh) who encountered a man who confessed to adultery and wanted to be punished.

Zina = secs before marriage

Hudud = Islamic criminal law is not found in the Quran but in Hadiths

"In the most famous case (there are six known instances) of the Prophet ordering a man stoned for adultery, the man comes to the Prophet and confesses his sin. The Prophet asks him if he is crazy, and when he continues to insist the Prophet suggests that perhaps he only kissed the woman. In order to prevent witnesses from assuming secs was occurring when perhaps the couple was just embracing or lying on top of one another, the Prophet required the witnesses to testify that they’d seen “his pe*is enter into her v@gina like an eyeliner applier entering into its container.” Because the man who confessed, Maiz, insisted on confessing four times to the Prophet , the majority of Muslim scholars require all confessions of zinā to be done four times. Anything less cannot be punished by the Hudud."

Basically the Prophet gave him escape routes out of punishment.

It goes on....

"Based on the same case of Māaiz, jurists agreed that even someone who had confessed to zinā could retract that confession at any point and no longer face the Hudud punishment. Finally, even external signs such as pregnancy were not considered proof that zina had occurred in the opinion of the majority of Muslim scholars. For example, if a woman’s husband had been away for years, he could have been miraculously transported to be with her. Or she could have been raped. The one school that did consider pregnancy determinative proof of zina (assuming the woman didn’t claim she had been raped) allowed the possibility that a woman could be pregnant for up to five years. Normally in the Shariah, such miraculous or fantastic claims would carry no weight in legal matters. But as possible ambiguities to prevent application of the Hudud, they were accepted.

This immense allowance for ambiguities in ruling on sexual offenses can be seen most clearly in the Hanafi school of law, which was the official school of the Ottoman Empire. When prostitutes and their clients were caught, they were not tried for zina due to the (admittedly outlandish) ambiguity that prostitution was structurally similar to marriage; both were exchanges of sexual access for money (in the case of marriage, the groom’s dowry payment).This is not because Muslim scholars had any sympathy for prostitution or a low regard for marriage, but rather because they hunted for any possible ambiguity to avoid implementing the Hudud."

This is from the first link below and I really, really, really suggest you click on the links below if you want real information on Islamic Sharia and further context.

It talks about all the punishments so if you are interested this material should be enlightening.

To Read

https://yaqeeninstitute.org/jonathan-brown/stoning-and-hand-cutting-understanding-the-hudud-and-the-shariah-in-islam/

To Watch

https://thedebateinitiative.com/2012/11/14/shariah-law-barbaric-or-misunderstood/

Thanks for the effort, KFC. Reeading tht first link now.

comment by Sir Digby (U6039)
posted 1 hour, 10 minutes ago
comment by Kung Fu Cantona *JeSuisPalestinian* (U18082)
posted 2 hours, 9 minutes ago
comment by Baz tard (U19119)
posted 1 minute ago
Sunni...most inappropriate name ever. Should have called themselves, dark thunderstorm instead.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Notice how the only violent Sunnis are the one's who had their homes blown up.

If Trump invades Iran expect a few bomb threats from Shias.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Bit off from your point but why would he invade Iran? Not exactly his thing invasion
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It's probably less likely than under Bush to be fair but he is so Pro Israel it's seems possible.

My reply was more of a hypothetical though to show that as soon as you destroy innocent lives, those left behind (Shia or Sunni) will retaliate.

comment by itsonlyagame (U6426)
posted 1 minute ago
Thanks for the effort, KFC. Reeading tht first link now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

No worries mate!

While I'm at it, could I ask you whether it says anything about slavery? Hadn't really thought about it before, but reading a bit about the Uthman Qur'an the other day, I read that he had slaves, and that he would free some every Friday.