Vatican: Stoning in Iran adultery case 'brutal'

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

It is a fact that adultery in Islam is punishable by stoning. This is something that every Muslim knows and by virtue of belief in Islam accepts. The process for proving adultery is not as easy as it seems. Four witnesses have to physically see the actual act with their eyes. They have to be truthful people and known to be truthful. This is Islamic law. Its clear that in practice it would be very hard for adultery to be proven unless a) the couple were intimate in the street or b) either party confesses freely.

In these countries that claim to follow the shariah there are always glaring problems with the execution of the punishments. Either there is no real proof or its just hear say so women are killed unjustly. Islam isn't unjust.

I think it is ironic that the Catholic church who spent years shoving their own systematic abuse of children by Priests under the rug has a need to speak out against a practice that, again, should be extremely difficult to execute if the proper rules were followed.

####### ??? Are you for real ? "Four witnesses that are known to be truthful." And who know's they are truthful? That is about the weirdest post on this board to date. In fact that post of yours helps to show just what nut cases they are not only in Iran, but anyone that agree's in Sharia.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

####### ??? Are you for real ? "Four witnesses that are known to be truthful." And who know's they are truthful? That is about the weirdest post on this board to date. In fact that post of yours helps to show just what nut cases they are not only in Iran, but anyone that agree's in Sharia.

Shhhhhhh! Sharia is nuts but you will be called racist and prejudiced if you don't agree to pretend you support without criticism the nuttiness.

Actually the post you reacted to is reasonably factual. That would have seemed far less incredible in 1010, but the year is 2010 and a not insignificant proportion of the globes practicing Muslims think like this.

Stoning is indefensible so expect to hear what a prejudiced bigot you are, and about how vile the Catholic Church is.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You're taking this a might personally, aren't you. Perhaps you should learn to take yourself a little less seriously. Then we wouldnt be constantly running into your ego in every thread

[Myopia 93]

####### ??? Are you for real ? "Four witnesses that are known to be truthful." And who know's they are truthful? That is about the weirdest post on this board to date. In fact that post of yours helps to show just what nut cases they are not only in Iran, but anyone that agree's in Sharia.

Yea, I am "for real". I am giving you facts and if you don't like it then that's ok. You don't have to like it but you do have to make a small attempt to get the point that I made. The point being. Islam has very specific guidelines as to what, how and why. I tried to shed some light on that what, how and why in the post that you so eloquently replied to. Truthful among the people. Without getting too technical, there are criteria for narrations and one of them is that the person that narrates a matter has to be known as truthful. If he is a known liar or has some other issue then his narration would not be considered a true witness.

Every Muslim is a nutjob? Alrighti then. That's basically what you are saying. You have a right to your opinion but that doesn't make it a true or just statement. It is what it is.

Stoning as a punishment has been mentioned many times in the bible.

'If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." 21 Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid. Deuteronomy 21:18-21

23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you. Deuteronomy 22:23-24

If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. 9 You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. Deuteronomy 13:5-10

If you believe in the bible in its entirety then you are obligated to believe that all the rules in the bible were relevant at its time. Regardless of whether you believe that time has passed or not. Stoning was one of the punishments of choice in the Bible as directed by God. People were obligated to follow those orders.

Would you consider a person who understands this as a "nutjob" also?

[Myopia 93]

Shhhhhhh! Sharia is nuts but you will be called racist and prejudiced if you don't agree to pretend you support without criticism the nuttiness.

Actually the post you reacted to is reasonably factual. That would have seemed far less incredible in 1010, but the year is 2010 and a not insignificant proportion of the globes practicing Muslims think like this.

Stoning is indefensible so expect to hear what a prejudiced bigot you are, and about how vile the Catholic Church is.

Everyone has a right to their opinion. The first response should not be a character assassination but as we say if the shoe fits!

Why are these laws less incredible in 1010? I find that a strange statement. Are you saying that people in 1010 were more deserving of stoning? The verses that I posted from the bible all advocate stoning. Are you saying that God made a mistake in His orders to His servants at that time?

Love to know what you think.

Your friendly neighborhood "nutjob'

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Everyone has a right to their opinion. The first response should not be a character assassination but as we say if the shoe fits!

Why are these laws less incredible in 1010? I find that a strange statement. Are you saying that people in 1010 were more deserving of stoning? The verses that I posted from the bible all advocate stoning. Are you saying that God made a mistake in His orders to His servants at that time?

Love to know what you think.

Your friendly neighborhood "nutjob'

The Bible did advocate stoning, but Christians at least to some degree evolved and none currently or for an exceptionally long time have practiced it. Even the Jewish faith which accepts just the Old Testament rejected stoning a very long time ago. It is but one of many examples of believers in the Bible across differing faiths have evolved with more modern thinking.

Womens rights would be another example. The Bible is as clear on the inferior role of women as the Quoran, but far greater strides, and in most cases actual recognition of equality has been achieved. An obvious exception would be female priesthood in the Catholic Church, but women can speak there and read verses to the congregation clearly a Biblical no-no. So some baby steps there.

The Bible also clearly sets out proper procedure for setting up your tent in tremendous detail with the requisite penalty of damnation for failure. Largely forgotten and ignored by modern practitioners. For another example.

Things went rather poorly when the Church ran the show, how would you say things are going where Islam runs the show? I would say poorly...

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Just realized I failed to answer the 1010 vs 2010 did God err in his commandment question!

I don't believe God, Allah, or any other magical mystical Diety from any religion gave anyone, at any time, commandments of any sort. At least there is a consistent lack of proof which binds all religions into the category of faith I.e. belief in the utter absence of the verifiable.

Thus in 2010 when ancient and barbaric practices such as stoning occur they are far more shocking in an age where most have evolved beyond said ancient and barbaric practices.

[Peikko 1,575]

Just realized I failed to answer the 1010 vs 2010 did God err in his commandment question!

I don't believe God, Allah, or any other magical mystical Diety from any religion gave anyone, at any time, commandments of any sort. At least there is a consistent lack of proof which binds all religions into the category of faith I.e. belief in the utter absence of the verifiable.

Thus in 2010 when ancient and barbaric practices such as stoning occur they are far more shocking in an age where most have evolved beyond said ancient and barbaric practices.

Why do you assume that all people evolve at the same rate just because we in the West enjoy education, wealth and a legacy of cultural revolution? Seems like you believe that such things can be asborbed by osmosis or something. How silly.

Stoning is barbaric and human rights conventions do not allow for such a death penalty, but many argue that no death penalty is acceptable under human rights conventions, no matter what the means and many countries have signed up to this - but not the US. Does that make the US barbaric to us Europeans? Should Europeans be allowed to take away your right to condemn a man to death? Perhaps we should.

[Myopia 93]

The Bible did advocate stoning, but Christians at least to some degree evolved and none currently or for an exceptionally long time have practiced it. Even the Jewish faith which accepts just the Old Testament rejected stoning a very long time ago. It is but one of many examples of believers in the Bible across differing faiths have evolved with more modern thinking.

Womens rights would be another example. The Bible is as clear on the inferior role of women as the Quoran, but far greater strides, and in most cases actual recognition of equality has been achieved. An obvious exception would be female priesthood in the Catholic Church, but women can speak there and read verses to the congregation clearly a Biblical no-no. So some baby steps there.

The Bible also clearly sets out proper procedure for setting up your tent in tremendous detail with the requisite penalty of damnation for failure. Largely forgotten and ignored by modern practitioners. For another example.

Things went rather poorly when the Church ran the show, how would you say things are going where Islam runs the show? I would say poorly...

Your first sentence is very important but you made a mistake. It wasn't the Bible as much as God ordering stoning in the bible. So when you say that Christians have evolved, what do you mean? The Creator of the Old Testament is the same as the Creator of the New Testament. Did Christians evolve or are you trying to say that God did? My point is that God ordered a certain punishment in the Bible and regardless of whether you think it was backward or not..It was an order from YOUR Creator (Assuming you believe in a Creator).

The Qu'ran is very clear on the rights of women. There are many verses that equate women and men and say, "And the believing men AND the believing women" and state that women have the same rewards as men.

In any event, my aim here is just to throw some light on what Islam really is and advocates.

A women would not be stoned to death based on hearsay. Stoning isn't something that's reserved for women alone. Stoning isn't something that's peculiar to Islam and Islam being a continuation of what came before (as related to the worship of God) then it makes sense that there are similar punishments for similar spiritual crimes.

Like it or lump it. It is what it is.

Have a great day!

I just saw what you wrote about 1010 vs 2010. Thank you for answering that. Your responses make total sense. If you don't believe in a Creator then why would you understand what a religious obligation is or an order from a Creator. In your minds eyes..those that follow a religion are like mindless puppets. I get that. I dont have a problem with that or your opinion.

Again Thanks.

Edited September 6, 2010 by Myopia

[Danno 1,228]

I don't think the Catholic church should step in, it is not their business, they need to sort out the corruption within their house before wading in to other religious houses.

I'm assuming you offered this advice to Washington D.C. as well?

[BethandBilly 86]

As I said I am talking about religion not the country. As I said before though "People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" and yes I think that applies across the board, that being said if the UN as a collective along with Amnesty International and other groups wish to fight for this woman, that then is great at least it is coming from global groups, not from one church or one country only, it is something taken onboard by many to help protect one, yes for them to intervene makes sense, for the US or the Catholic Church singularly no.

[Atencio 43]

Why does it matter who the requests comes from?

I am sure Iran has a lot more of a beef with the UN than it does with the Catholic Church.

[doodlebugg 10]

I hope the Vatican does have success though I agree that they aren't exactly squeaky clean on preventing death. In fact if I really think about it, their refusal to allow Catholics in Africa to use condoms to prevent AIDS kind of sort of implicates them in thousands of murders themselves, doesn't it? Wouldn't their efforts be best steered towards saving thousands? Or does saving one seem like it would add more political capital? After all Iran is such a popular black sheep to beat on these days.

[Danno 1,228]

As I said I am talking about religion not the country. As I said before though "People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" and yes I think that applies across the board, that being said if the UN as a collective along with Amnesty International and other groups wish to fight for this woman, that then is great at least it is coming from global groups, not from one church or one country only, it is something taken onboard by many to help protect one, yes for them to intervene makes sense, for the US or the Catholic Church singularly no.

Wait a minute, you sounded like you were working with a principle there, do go off-track now.

Surely you are aware of the dirty Laundry the UN has with Rape and even rape of children in Africa?

Yet you dismiss that and give them your blessing to be involved?

Tsk Tsk Tsk

[evli1966 88]

Anyone who condones the Stoning of another person for what ever reason deserves to have a family memeber, close friend or oneself put to the treatment.

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

But again if you do not believe in Christ then it means nothing to you.