Islam extremists,,are they blessed Muslims or cursed Muslims?

Here is a good thread about stoning:

The punishment of stoning is the hadd punishment for the married adulterer, which essentially entails that it functions exclusively as a deterrent. Here's why. To apply this punishment you need four witnesses to the actual act of penetration who observed it from four different angles and if there is even the slightest contradiction in the most minute details of their testimony, they are punished with eighty lashes for false accusation of adultery. Thus, the implementation of the hadd punishment for zina is a practical impossibility. As the fatwâ committee under the supervision of Shaykh 'Abdul-Wahâb At-Turaryrî notes:

It is not enough for four people to show up at court and give testimony. The witnesses and their backgrounds have to be carefully scrutinized by the courts to determine their trustworthiness and honesty. They have to be able to demonstrate that they saw the crime. It is not easy to explain how one was able to witness such an act without being guilty of any wrongdoing oneself. The witnesses have to see actual sexual penetration. This is not an easy thing to explain.

If the condition of four witnesses of determined trustworthiness is not fulfilled, each of those who accused the person of adultery is given 80 lashes with a whip as the punishment for bearing false witness.

Allah says: “And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not four witnesses (to support their allegations), flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors.” [Sûrah al-Nûr: 4]

The punishments for fornication and adultery are designed more to protect society from the open practice of licentious sexual behavior than they are designed to punish people.

It is nearly impossible to get a conviction for adultery except in a case where it is carried out in public for all eyes to see. With this threat of severe punishment, people will keep their evil deeds concealed and society as a whole will be protected.

It is worth noting that in the 1400 years of Islamic history, these stringent conditions have never been met even once. And due to the deterrent effect, sexual immorality is suffocated and eradicated in an Islamic society.

To see the full thread click here: http://www.islamicboard.com/islamic-...hlight=Stoning

Nearly every question you have asked has been answered several times in various threads. If you use the search option above you will find information about nearly every subject.

As far as our attitudes about extremists. I can only speak for myself.

First if you mean an extremist as being a True Muslim [Muslim is Arabic meaning: a person who submits to the will of God(swt)] Then I am totaly in favor of them and hope I can have the faith they do.

Now if you mean a person who uses Islam as an excuse to commit acts of Terrorism, I have no use for them and can only pray that they will repent before they face judgement of God(swt)

Then if you mean by extremist as being a person who follows Sharia law. That I can not relate to, as in todays world there are no Nations that are under true Sharia Law.

However, from what little I know of Sharia law, I would say it is designed for peace and high moral behavior and that it can only be applied to Muslims and not to Non-Muslims except where the Sharia Laws and what would equate to Civil or Criminal law are the same.

format_quote Originally Posted by D.Y.R#7XTRUST

The plain and simple definition of extremist is this: (used of opinions and actions) far beyond the norm; "extremist political views"; "radical opinions on education"; "an ultra conservative"

Now am I saying that you are an extremist if you take the Bible and or quran literally. NO But for an example if a person steals and you cut off their hands or feet, would this be of God? Would they be praised for there falling the quran?

Those that follow the Qu'ran and Sunnah of course are to be praised, just as those who applied the law of God in the time of Moses should be praised for sacrifising their lives at war as God commanded, for carrying out the stoning that God commanded and excecuting His law. So yes, if a person follows the law of Islam properly then it is very good, that would not be an extermist though, unless you also hold Moses and Jesus to be extremist.

Eesa

format_quote Originally Posted by steve

I disagree, scolars do not disagree on suicide belt they all condemn it.

No, they don't. What has taken place here is that one group of scholars condemns another group of scholars. They refuse to hear each other - but merely pretending they don't exist will not make the disputes go away. They will have to be resolved, preferably soon, or they will divide the Ummah even further. To date, not one of them has earned their wings in this respect. They talk behind each-others backs, in front of television cameras, or over each-other's heads... but the day will come when they will be required to settle these matters face-to-face. One concession. One demand - and they'll have to split the difference in terms of blame for the harm some of them have caused. I would like to see this day come before my time runs out here, since it is MY soul that is caught up in the struggle between them, not to mention the many others.

Ninth Scribe

format_quote Originally Posted by D.Y.R#7XTRUST

I knew that statement about what is norm would come up in this discussion. So I will narrow it down to the norm in Islamic faith and Islamic rule.

O.K, lets focus on the topic of theft. What would be the criteria in a situation where an individual steals to feed his family. (Under Islamic rule).

Thank You.

Sorry, it seems I didn't see that question earlier, so with slight delay, here's the answer.

The criteria for cutting of a hand are:

• There isn’t any doubt as to the guilt of the suspect.
• The value of the stolen goods is something of great value.
• The thief didn’t steal out of need/poverty.
• The thief didn’t return the goods and seeks forgiveness of the victim of the theft, before the case enters the judicial system.
• The culprit is a sane adult and the crime was not committed under duress.
• The goods were legally owned by someone and held in proper storage.
• It is not the case of a child stealing from parents or parents stealing from children or one spouse from another.
• The person isn’t permitted to enter the place from where he stole because otherwise there is no proper custody.
• The punishment is not applied to the non-Muslim living in the Muslim state.

So in the specific case you mentioned the punishment cannot be given for two reasons: one it's not something of great value, and it was out of need.

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

So um let me get this straight.

Muslims who'd support chopping off hands for theft and stoning people for adultery in an Islamic state are NOT extreme?

That is a very scary thought to a secular person.

Not when you stop and think neither is likely to happen and then it would be under extreme circumstances. Also notice, under Sharia Law, neither would apply to non-Muslims. They apply to Muslims because we are aware of the circumstances and accept them.

format_quote Originally Posted by MuSe

However, how can a practising believer, a slave of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) be a terrorist, when he follows a religion of peace and love?

I have difficulty reconsiling chopping off appendages and stoning people with peace and love.

I am glad to read in the post above that this wouldn't apply to non muslims in a muslim country though.

Would it apply to muslim children? Is special consideration given to children and wives who are economically dependant on husbands so can not realistically leave him and declare themselves to be non-muslim?

How do you determine if somebody is truly muslim in enforcing these laws? What would you do with somebody who upon sentencing declares themselves to no longer be muslim?

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

I have difficulty reconsiling chopping off appendages and stoning people with peace and love.

I am glad to read in the post above that this wouldn't apply to non muslims in a muslim country though.

Would it apply to muslim children? Is special consideration given to children and wives who are economically dependant on husbands so can not realistically leave him and declare themselves to be non-muslim?

How do you determine if somebody is truly muslim in enforcing these laws? What would you do with somebody who upon sentencing declares themselves to no longer be muslim?

* There isn’t any doubt as to the guilt of the suspect.
* The value of the stolen goods is something of great value.
* The thief didn’t steal out of need/poverty.
* The thief didn’t return the goods and seeks forgiveness of the victim of the theft, before the case enters the judicial system.
* The culprit is a sane adult and the crime was not committed under duress.
* The goods were legally owned by someone and held in proper storage.
* It is not the case of a child stealing from parents or parents stealing from children or one spouse from another.
* The person isn’t permitted to enter the place from where he stole because otherwise there is no proper custody.
* The punishment is not applied to the non-Muslim living in the Muslim state.

Nope childrens are unaffected to

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

I have difficulty reconsiling chopping off appendages and stoning people with peace and love.

I am glad to read in the post above that this wouldn't apply to non muslims in a muslim country though.

Would it apply to muslim children? Is special consideration given to children and wives who are economically dependant on husbands so can not realistically leave him and declare themselves to be non-muslim?

How do you determine if somebody is truly muslim in enforcing these laws? What would you do with somebody who upon sentencing declares themselves to no longer be muslim?

How do you determine if somebody is truly muslim in enforcing these laws? What would you do with somebody who upon sentencing declares themselves to no longer be muslim?

If you are living in a Sharia country, there would be no question of the ruling authorities being Muslim.

Now what would happen to a person suddenly declaring they were no longer Muslim upon sentencing. That is one reason why apostasy by a Muslim can be punishable by death in a Sharia ruled country.

Children are exempt from all laws untill at least the age of puberty.

I think what he meant how do we know if the culprit is truly a muslim. Well we can't look into someone's head o know what he feels, so this is actually a good question. I'd say a lot can be established by behavioral patterns, for example if someone is known to pray 5 times a day, and so on. But then again none of this is conclusive. Well I guess if you're not truly a muslim but you pretend to be one, facing to be trialed as a muslim is just the price you would have to pay then. I'm not certain about that last comment though, Allah subhana wa ta'ala knows and I do not.

If the person declares not to be a muslim (and claimed not to be a muslim at the time he commited the crime to?) I think then he is not to be trailed as one. Again, I don't know and Allah subhana wa ta'ala knows. I'm really not qualified since I don't know enough about Islamic law to answer those questions.

I thought the only time when apostation can be punished with death is when the person commits treason or another crime that calls for death penalty at the same time, and hence that in other words the apostasy itself is not punished.

Oh wait I think I got it, what you meant was, if the person has been acting as muslim (like a spy) and then apostates, right?

^^ Thats what I thought. Theres three conditions and one of them is treason.

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

Well yes, thats a given. Or at least them claiming to be in a claimed Sharia country (speaking of the practical reality instead of the theory).



Really?

I think I'm reading this wrong. Its left a pretty shocking image.

If a muslim commits theft, and thus would sentenced to have his hands cut off, and he then declares apostacy. It is then proper under this law that he be killed?

I'd have figured that his declaration of apostacy would have to be taken as genuine, as a true believer in Islam would have more to fear from Allah's retribution after death than from any punishment meted out on earth. Is that incorrect?

[/QUOTE]

There is no way a Muslim would commit apostacy to save his hands. About the only way that would happen is if the person was not Muslim and only claimed to be one to spy against the government. Which is treason as there is no seperation of State and religion.

I am not saying that it is impossible for a situation would come up were a person would convert from Islam at the last moment. But, that is a very hypothetical situation and not likely to occur.


I am far from an Authority on Sharia Law. However My experiences with it while I was non-Muslim I can say I was always treated with understanding and tolerance. That was my personal experiences during my travels and living throughout North Africa and parts of Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

My two cents....

I was thinking (yes it happens from time to time) what if the west left muslim lands, would the extrimists have any other reason to continue this 'jihad'?