Originally Posted by Nightcrawler
Indeed, four witnesses are necessary or the ones committing it confess it four times.
So, seems unlikely then that the current implementation fulfills this criteria yes?
Some of these hadiths
are very weak. I would argue some are even false. For example:
Chapter 4: STONING OF A MARRIED ADULTERER
Book 017, Number 4194:
'Abdullah b. 'Abbas reported that 'Umar b. Khattab sat on the pulpit of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: Verily Allah sent Muhammad (may peace be upon him) with truth and He sent down the Book upon him, and the verse of stoning was included in what was sent down to him. We recited it, retained it in our memory and understood it. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) awarded the punishment of stoning to death (to the married adulterer and adulteress) and, after him, we also awarded the punishment of stoning....
That bold bit it not true.
As you yourself admit, it is not in the Qur'an yet here someone in a hadith
is saying that it is. This hadith
is therefore false.
But let's assume that it is all true... could be. That was the climate of the time, is the same in the Old Testament.
Assuming that - would anyone argue that the laws of the OT should be enforced today?
Well...some do....we call them fundies and religious nutters....but to be honest, there are not many in Christianity that feel this way.....very, very few.
And yet their Holy Book - which some believe is the literal word of God (as do Muslims in part) commands this.
But the religion has moved on. As it should. And Islam should do the same.
God is not stuck in the 7th century.
The application of the stoning-ruling is certainly not fair or correct in saudi Arabia, pakistan and iran... stonings are done where lashings would have been the right decision, and sometimes the four witnesses nor the four confessions are there and sometimes only the woman gets punished...
Kicking out the Wahabis and the insane clerics would be the right decision.....we can talk about lashings later. maybe for them....
That's hardly a proof, temporary marriage was indeed allowed in early islam for people that travelled far away and for prolonged times, but the practice was prohibitted after Umar's rule.
Actually it wasn't as I will prove in a moment. But we are not talking about Umar's rule...we are talking about the time of the first umma
But even if temporary marriage was still allowed, it wouldn't make adultery non-existent. Remember the stoning-punishment was for adulterers who were already married. For example a married woman couldn't marry any other man before divorcing her current one, and a man who already had four wifes couldn't marry an additional one, temporary or not.
I assure you it is still allowed.Nikah Misyar
Misyar marriage fits within the general rules of marriage in Sunni law, on condition merely that it fulfil all the requirements of the Shariah marriage contract i.e:
The agreement of both parties;
Two legal witnesses (Shahidain)
The payment by the husband to his wife of Mahr in the amount that is agreed
The absence of a fixed time period for the contract
Shuroot, Any particular stipulations which the two parties agree to include in the contract and which are in conformity with Muslim marriage law.
Moreover, as explained by the Saudi Islamic lawyer Abdullah bin Sulaiman bin Menie, a member of the Higher Council of Ulema of Saudi Arabia, the wife can denounce at any time, as she sees fit, her renunciation of her financial rights, and require of her husband that he give her all her rights, including that he live with her and provide for her financial needs ("nafaqa"). The husband can then either do so, or grant her a divorce.
For these reasons, Professor Yusuf Al-Qaradawi observes that he does not promote this type of marriage, although he has to recognise that it is legal, since it fulfils all the requirements of the usual marriage contract. He states his preference that the clause of renunciation be not included within the marriage contract, but be the subject of a simple verbal agreement between the parties. He underlines the fact that Muslims are held by their commitments, whether they are written or verbal.
As to the illogic of it - there is none. On the contrary it makes sound sense and it COMPLETELY AVOIDS ADULTERY (which is what it is designed to do):
In addition to the preceding cases, wealthy Arab men sometimes enter into a Misyar marriage while on vacation, in order to have sexual relations with another woman without committing the sin of zina. They usually divorce the women once their holiday is over.
The Sheikh of al-Azhar Mosque Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi and theologian Yusuf Al-Qaradawi note, in their writings and in their lectures, that a major proportion of the men who take a spouse in the framework of the misyar marriage are already married men.
Many of the men involved would not marry a second wife within the regime of normal Islamic polygamy, because of the heavy financial burdens, moral obligations & responsibilities it places on the husband. But, they opt for the option of misyar marriage when the theologians declare it licit.