The Stoning of Suraya M. Is It right?

One very emotional and strong video

what do you think guys, is it right or wrong?

i agree with you mercy bhai, its v cruel.

I watched this film!

The film was really great, emotional. Made me cry too, Lol.

But I think that the scene was a bit too ruthless, especially with all the villagers coming and throwing stones at her one by one. It wrong to say the least.

Don't be fooled by this propaganda of Western media and Shia media. Stoning to death is the punishment for Adultery proven by authentic Ahaidth. This is the way our holy Prophet gave punishment to the people involve in adultery. It is neither barbaric nor we as Muslims should call it as barbaric or cruel. How can we speak against a law which is prescribed by Allah and implemented by Prophet (PBUH).

But remember that there are tough conditions to charge anyone under this hadd unless the person himself confess his crime.

But why in front of everyone? This punishment or any other punishement can be done behind the doors in private???

This has happened in Saudi Arabia many times.

I agree with you AP. If our dear Prophet were alive right now, he would've done the same thing.

It is a bit cruel, but what the women did was also cruel. She cheated on her husband, most likely broke his heart, lost the trust that everyone had in her, and if she had any children, she turned out to be a negative in their life.

@PP, Allah ordered for stoning to happen in public so that people would be deterred from making the same mistake.

Because this way our Prophet did this. Why question him PP? This is like a deterrent for people to keep themselves away from such filthy acts.

Ok thanks AP and KG

I can understand ya point but these cases should be mininmum coz of the evidence needed for these punishment.
Its v hard to get that kind of evidence, am I right?

Most of the people dont know abt the evidence and start acting like stupids.

^ Yes the conditions to charge someone under this hadd are very very hard unless a person confesses himself.

This movie was hard to watch. What an @sshole Soraya's husband was.

As for of it's right or wrong...in Soraya's case, the Mullah's abused the Islamic law of stoning knowingly. They need to be stoned too, along with her evil husband.

I wonder what became of her children..

Soraya was wrongly accused of adultery by her husband, so that he could marry a younger woman.

One problem is gathering evidence. People don't like admitting they did something wrong.

I never watched this movie, and I never watched the video on this thread, because I know I'm going to burst into tears. (I'm a closet crier.) That means I don't really know the story. But from what I have read in this thread is that Soraya's husband and the Mullah's were not angels. We don't know fact from fiction, but on the Day of Judgement, we'll find out.

There needs to be very very clear evidence in which there is no doubt. If a person for example admits to this act and asks for forgiveness, this punishment will act as an expiation for his/her adultery. If he does not get caught, its upto Allah whether he wants to forgive or not and may well be held to account on the day of judgement.

I haven't seen the film so can't comment on it. Reason for it being done in front of people is its acts as a clear deterrent for others to commit adultery. Islam hates those things which destroy the family life and community in general.

Fornication (sex outside of marriage before marriage) however has a punishment of lashes and exile for 1 year from the community.

This punishment (of stoning) is also the same in both Judaism and Christianity.

Just watched the first stone being thrown at her, and that's when I closed the tab.

Now, I'm going to have nightmares.

Great.

There was no need to post this clip TBH....some things are better unseen. There is something seriously rotten in pakistan and even if this girl was guilty her il deeds dont even scratch the surface of what some have done.

^This isn't Pakistan. This movie is based in Iraq.

Ok my bad but i still dont think its a good idea to post this clip...ps why did u watch it? No good can come out of watching gore.

PS heres my issue with sharia law stoning ETC...Sharia Law may be Gods law but the people who apply it are flawed humans. In that respect i would prefer a secular republic in Iraq. I know thats going to upset alot of people but thats my opinion.
It just makes me sick that some of the stone throwers enjoyed this or did things that were probably worse.

With that logic, you could just as easily make the same comparison with secular laws. Many secular countries still carry the death penalty. In that regard the people who hand out punishments of execution are also flawed individuals, should they then also ban similar punishments?

You could just as easily rephrase your wording as "i know this is God's law, but I prefer secular law". Both parties have flawed INDIVIDUALS, but God's law will always be better than any man made laws.

Scholars have gone so far to say that hating or saying anything is better than what Allah has prescribed takes a person out of Islam because such an individual believes other people know better than Allah and this person has gone against Allah and his messenger by thinking what he is doing is better.

As for carrying out such a punishment, the ruling requires very strong evidences and proof beyond a shadow of doubt. Its not a punishment given lightly (which is why its very uncommon and requiring strong witnesses) and both males and females are held to the same punishment and there should be no doubt at all in if the person is guilty or not, (i believe this is also requirements for the death penalty in secular countries)

The media tries to portray this as a punishment only for women which is incorrect.

As someone posted above, the girl was innocent, so handing out such a punishment was wrong and a crime.

Ok for a start im not gonna watch this video but could you clarify if all Islamic protocol was followed in handing out this punishment?

Now your telling me that sharia Law is infallible and it is as its the word of God and you have gone to great lengths to explain the jurisprudence BUT you cant prove to me that the execution of the law was without fault. Iraq is hardly known for its checks and balances....this was a kangaroo court.

If your going to follow sharia law there must be checks and balances in place to ensure correct application. Thats why i argued in favor of a secular approach. Name me a country that applys sharia law in its purest form?

The law wasn't applied properly was it! An innocent woman was stoned to death because her scumbag husband wanted to marry someone else (mentioned above). Like i said before the Word of god is infallible but the people who apply it sure as hell aint. If this woman was given a fair trial with a chance to be represented infront of a judge she'd be alive. This aint the kind of call some hick mullah with a substandard understanding of islam should make. Was he a scholar? probably not, just a judgmental turd like those morons who stoned this woman to death.

Its not the law im criticising its the application.

double post!

I have neither seen or heard about this case before (i mentioned this a few times) , so was making a GENERAL comment about the Islamic ruling in matters. I also mentioned that the evidences required must be infallible.

This is the crucial part!

So whether the court uses Islamic or secular both have to do it based on proper evidence. You could again rephrase your statement as saying "shari'ah courts use little evidence and not as stringent checks compared to secular courts, which is the reason they are better". This is just your opinion, but either way secular courts can also abuse their powers. Pakistan is a prime example, a "muslim" country which uses mostly secular laws. Yet everywhere people are complaining about the rubbish law enforcement, corrupt courts etc.

My whole point is, if comparing the actual laws, Islam has the better ruling which is better and protects family and the community as well as being a deterrent. Also how is having complete secular law better than having at least some shari'ah law. Both laws are equally open to abuse if you have a corrupt court.

As far as I'm aware, Saudi follow the Shari'ah law most closely.

Dude do you realize that this is a video from a movie not real? :facepalm

^The movie is based on a TRUE STORY.

I got the impression from previous posts that it was real.....as such i did not watch it because i have no desire to watch anyone being stoned ETC. The fact that its not real is academic and doesnt negate from the arguments made by Rizzy me or anyone else.

Evidently if women are getting stoned based on the fake testimony of their husbands then the burden of proof is pretty below par and nowhere near that required by a court in the UK for example. Thats not the fault of the laws but those executing the laws......my point is western (not usa) courts require a reasonable amount of certainty and have checks and balances to make sure that justice(whatever they see that as) is done. If someone is going to stone , cut off limbs etc as punishment then they better have proper checks and balances in place and be qualified. In the case of the above video they were not.

As for saudi arabia following Sharia....lets be honest they are the biggest hypocrites in the world and full of crap. The House of saud are into all forms of debauchery. Take the gay saudi prince for example....when he gets released from the UK prison for murdering his servant do you think they will apply sharia law in his case?

You can't exactly blame shari'ah law itself, when people are abusing it. There are countless cases of secular laws being abused, people being put to death on false charges, life imprisonment etc.

Just need to look at what happened In Norway. A man went to a summer camp for children dressed as a policeman and shot dead 70 children and injured loads more. He also bombed government buildings. The court approved psychiatrists found this person to be insane and delusional, so instead of prison he could go to a mental hospital for treatment.

Try explaining that to the families of the victims.

Would you consider that a fair case? Clearly someone needs some kind of intelligence (albeit very sick and twisted) to plan and then go and do what this man did and 2 independent psychiatrists found him to be of sound mind.

Countless people have been imprisoned for life and given death sentences with false or incorrect evidence via secular law. Lets not forget Babar Ahmed is still in prison and has undergone torture based on what evidence?!

Would this Iraqi court that made this judgement suddenly become honest and fair just because its using secular law? The only way to have fair laws is if the individuals themselves are fair and honest, this goes for both secular and Islamic where the judge needs to be impartial.

Evidence like I've said needs to be solid. Shari'ah law doesn't mean the evidence has to be any less correct than that required for secular law.

As for Saudi, maybe you'd like to point out a country that uses more shari'ah law. It may not be perfectly implemented and its government is not totally innocent but it does follow the Shari'ah law more closely than any other country. As for the gay prince, Allah knows best.

At what point did i blame sharia law?

The barbar ahmed case is politically motivated and fueled by anti Muslim hysteria...why do you think so many people are against it both muslim and non muslim. Muslims are the exception to the rule it seems and cant get a fair trial in the UK for love nor money and on that i am wiling to agree with you.

But the point i am trying to make is stoning to death a person should require a burden of proof that is beyond reasonable doubt and verges on certainty...most countries that apply Sharia law are flakey to say the least.

Again that's a matter of opinion, most countries that don't use shari'ah also aren't free of injustice/ corruption. Using a secular law isn't gonna transform those individuals wanting to abuse the system to somehow become honest. They are gonna abuse the system whether its secular or Islamic.

But at least in the majority of cases where the law isn't abused you'll have a judgement according to the Quran and Sunnah.

Look at some of the biggest countries in the world in terms of population, China, India, America, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Brazil, Nigeria, etc

All use non shari'ah law, among these which is free of court injustice/corruption?


P.S. The shari'ah law doesn't just comprise of limb cutting or stoning.

Hopefully this helps,

This is a fatwa by the late Sheikh Abdul Aziz bin Baaz may Allah have mercy on him. He was the Grand Mufti of Saudia Arabia and regarded as one of the most knowledgeable scholars of his time, and an authority in religious matters. He led the Hajj on a number of occasions aswell as Salah in Masjidul Haraam and was the president of the Islamic University of Medina. He was also a judge for over 14 years. He passed away a few years ago. This is a fatwa of his, which I think will clear up the doubt regarding the proof required.

alifta.net/Search/ResultDetails.asp...105110103032100111117098116#firstKeyWordFound

This is pretty sick that we human are trying to judge the Divine Law according to our view point.May Allah forgive me for taking part in this.

Stoning the Adulterer/Adulteress is the Law of Torah which was never abolished by any Prophet(pbut) after Moses(pbuh). So to say that this is only Jewish Law is wrong.

For those who say that Jesus(pbuh) has prohibited the Law of Stoning are wrong, they accuse Jesus(pbuh) of betraying the Law of Moses(pbuh) & Allah. When Jesus(pbuh) made it clear that He was sent to enforce the Mosaic law how can they accuse him of lying with any proof.

Someone asked why should stoning be done in public & answer to that is simple, Islamic Law has more of deterrent quality & it emphasizes on precaution on our part so to safe guard ourselves this kind of punishment.

Now the question of substance will I ever take part in stoning, my answer is YES if the correct Islamic Process as been followed I'll not mind in being the first to throw the stone against my own daughter or son.

Law which is better for society needs to be acted upon even if it goes against ones own interest.

P.S I may have given reference for all my view but as this is not the site for discussing this kind of thing I am not doing so.

The Qur'an is extremely clear on the punishment for fornication. The maximum punishment is one hundred lashes. The distinction between 'married' and 'unmarried' offenders is non-existent as far the Qur'an is concerned. That's that as far as consensual acts are concerned.

As for rape, it can be punished by painful death as it can come under the Qur'anic term "fasaad fil ardh", the only crime beside murder that can be punishable by death.

I agree that Quran doesn't make any distinction between married & unmarried folk are concerned in regards to Adultery. But Quran also allows the Prophet(saws) to make laws & command us to follow them.

And obey Allah and the Messenger. that ye may obtain mercy. (Aal-e-Imran, Chapter #3, Verse #132)

There are numerous verses like the above one where obeying Messenger is made part of the Islamic law.So if the distinction between Married & Unmarried is made by the Prophet(saws) then by the virtue of above verse alone it become the Law of Islam.

The question though is, did the Messenger make a distinction between married and unmarried offenders?

The answer would be: it can't be so. The same place where this punishment of 100 lashes is prescribed (Surah Noor), the situation where a husband suspects his wife of fornication is discussed. Now this situation is of course pertaining to married as opposed to unmarried offenders. The position that the Qur'an doesn't address the case of married people (while actions of the Messenger do) is not sound.

Of course there can't be any discrepancy or contradiction between the Qur'an and the actions of the Messenger.

This is a topic which will never be settled because some Muslims had doubts over the authenticity of Ahadith and they just rely on Quranic verses. They forget the most important point that Shariah is compromised of not only Quran but the sayings and actions of Holy Prophet (PBUH) as well.

I don't know about "some" Muslims, but I have doubts over the authenticity of numerous ahadees. I can rely on the Qur'anic verses (no questions asked) because I know all of them are authentic (I am sure you do too).

The actions and sayings of the Messenger are of course very important, but the question "Did the Messenger really say or do this?" is a very valid question, which must never be forgotten. You see, the ahadees didn't reach us the way the Qur'an did. Neither is there any assurance that any text other than the Qur'an is preserved by Allah.

So I will not dispute the Messenger's importance in our Shariat (far from it), although I will paraphrase the thought more accurately as, "Our religion is complete in the Qur'an and Sunnat". My position is that it is very important to examine whether a certain thing attributed to the Messenger did indeed come from the Messenger. I am quite confident this "stoning the married fornicator" thing didn't.

Momo I understands your point of view but I disagree with you that Quran reached us in a different way than the Ahaidth. The same people who wrote the Quranic verses while they were revealed to the Holy Prophet (PBUH) also wrote or memorized the sayings and actions of the Holy Prophet (PBUH). So you believe them in one case while have doubts on them in the case of Ahadith.

Secondly while rejecting Ahadith you are outrightly discarding the immense work of the compilers of Ahadith. You know better than me that how much care and effort they put in making sure that each word of any particular Hadith is authentic and not fabricated. The Mutawattar Ahaidth are presented with complete chain of narrators right up to the person who heard or saw it personally from the Holy Prophet (PBUH). All the Mutawattar Ahadith had gone through a very tough process of making sure that there is no addition or fabrication in those and after this they are termed as authentic. So we can't just brush them aside because they are part of our Imaan and Shariah.

Regarding your first paragraph: Look, this "the same people wrote and memorized the Qur'an and ahadees, so why accept one and have doubts on the other?" is a very simplistic way of looking at this. The Qur'an and ahadees are completely distinct things in the following ways:

1. Allah has promised to preserve the Qur'an, while the same cannot be said of ahadees. So potentially, there can be doubt on the authenticity of any hadees.
2. The Qur'an is not only the message of Allah, but His own words, and therefore it has reached us as riwaayat billafz (verbatim transmission). The ahadees have reached us in the form of riwaayat bil ma'aani (transmission by meaning). So even if it is assumed that a certain hadees is not a dishonest fabrication or somebody making an honest mistake in recalling it, it is still open to interpretation as it is not verbatim transmission.
3. The Qur'an is a coherent single book by one author, with context and all; while the ahadees are fragmented reports of happenings that don't always come with the context.
4. The Qur'an has reached us through numerous chains and with consensus of the whole muslim community at all times right from the Messenger till today. The same cannot be said of the ahadees, which were for the most part collected and compiled decades after the Messenger and different sects have always had their own "authentic" ahadees (there has never been consensus; there still isn't one today).

So if you ask, "You accept one, no questions asked, and have doubts on the other?" I will simply say, "Yes, because they are two distinct things."

As for your second paragraph, how many mutawaatar ahadees are there? I think you are confusing saheeh with mutawaatir. Also, I don't reject ahadees outright; I am merely of the view that unlike the Qur'an, we should scrutinize all ahadees, and anything that clashes with the Qur'an must be discarded. All hadees scholars agree to it in principle; in application however, most of them generally tend to be conservative in discarding ahadees that obviously clash with the Qur'an or are suspect in other respects.