Talk:Stoning in Islam

This site had value for me before reading this article. This article is just outrageous! Full of incorrect information and slanders! One with no Islamic knowledge would think we are actually stoning widowed pregnant women to death!

I AM JUST SO RELIEVED I FIXED AN ARTICLE THAT WAS WRITTEN BY ISLAMOPHOBES ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdurrahman akal (talk • contribs) 06:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I find the paragraph following 'Javed Ahmad Ghamid' difficult to understand. Perhaps one of the editors on this page could review it for clarity? CaughtLBW 17:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to improve the text for readability - Shaad lko (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Views: majority of Muslims?

Under views, the following sentence bothers me, and I have requested a citation as it sounds POVish:
The most common Muslim view is that stoning is the appropriate punishment for adultery (Arabic Zina) committed by a married man or woman with someone who is not legal to him/her.
Most common entails that a study has been performed, and needs to be referenced here. If there is no response, I'll edit the section to conform to NPOV and verifiability.--Scotchorama 18:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hadith

The mentioned hadith has not been quoted completely. The part of the stoning has been omitted. The correct hadith should be as follows:

'Ubada b. as-Samit reported that whenever Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) received revelation, he felt its rigour and the complexion of his face changed. One day revelation descended upon him, he felt the same rigour. When it was over and he felt relief, he said: Take from me. Verily Allah has ordained a way for them (the women who commit fornication),: (When) a married man (commits adultery) with a married woman, and an unmarried male with an unmarried woman, then in case of married (persons) there is (a punishment) of one hundred lashes and then stoning (to death). And in case of unmarried persons, (the punishment) is one hundred lashes and exile for one year.

Source: Sahih Muslim, Book 17, No. 4192 (USC)

--kornpicker 08:49, 02 November 2007 (CET)

I think providing a "hadith" without scholarly references regarding the opinion of the authenticity according to hadith science, is unacceptable. Faro0485 (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

If it is in the Sahih Muslim, then it is considered authentic by the vast majority of Muslim scholars. The Sahih Muslim and the Sahih al-Bukhari are the two major canonical collections of authenticated hadith — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jb212 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rajm. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.gaynz.com/news/default.asp?dismode=article&artid=2805

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Yet again, a poor understanding of Islam on Wikipedia, including dubious references.

So the article states that "some" Islamic laws allow stoning to death, right? The next question is, were do the Islamic laws come from? They come from the Quran, and the Quran only. The hadith is not a primary or secondary source of information, it is essentially a unauthorised biography of the final messenger, peace be upon him. If its not in the Quran, then it's not part of Islam. Islam clearly states that the Quran is the only source of the information on how to be a muslim, to follow Islam or what we believe is the word of the one and almighty God.

The Quran makes clear that nothing has been left out or is missing from the book, hence the idea of a hadith is insulting to Islam. Even if you find a large majority of people who say the hadith is part of Islam, it's not, Islam is what is in the Quran, so Wikipedia needs to reaffirm it's reference system and not just use peoples word of mouth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:8886:300:6D99:A9B0:6744:191 (talk) 22:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

This is completely wrong. The role of Wikipedia is to present Islam as it is and has been understood by Muslims. This will necessarily mean presenting the range of interpretations that exist in real life, explaining which are more common. It is not Wikipedia's job to push a particular interpretation of Islam that the editor believes to be "correct." The vast majority of Muslims throughout Islamic history believe that the hadith are a source of religious knowledge. Moreover, rajm is an Islamic legal concept, and pretty much 100% of Muslim jurists, the people who devised Islamic law, treated the hadith as a source of law. So-called Quranists, who believe that only the Quran is a valid scriptural source, constitute a tiny minority of Muslims, and always have done. Their impact on Islamic theology and law has been insignificant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jb212 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

This is English wikipedia

Islamic religious terms transliterated into Roman characters have no place on English wikipedia. If it’s not an English word or a proper name, it shouldn’t have an article. 174.82.25.46 (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

The English wikipedia is full of articles about Islamic terms, including Islam, Muslim, Quran,

hadith, shahada, salah, rak'a, wali, hijab and many, many examples.

The English wikipedia contains an article about the Baguette, a French word. It includes an article

about Dharma, a Sanskrit concept.

In general, the English wikipedia is full of articles about non-English words.

QamarBurtuqali (talk) 06:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)QamarBurtuqali

It is impossible to discuss the phenomenon of Stoning in Islam without quoting hadiths

Wikipedia editors have posted two warnings in the Hadith section of this article:

In my humble opinion, these warnings are coming from Wikipedia editors who are unfamiliar with this topic.

It is impossible to address the phenomenon of Stoning in Islam without providing examples of hadiths to document the Islamic history of stoning.

Knowledgeable scholars of Islam have contributed to the Stoning in Islam article by quoting and listing numbered hadiths about stoning, and they provided citations and links to online libraries of hadiths. This work is an essential contribution to this article.

The Stoning in Islam article contains references to books about Islamic Law: Rudolph Peters, Crime and Punishment in Islamic Law, Cambridge University Press. Ismail Poonwala (2007), The Pillars of Islam: Laws pertaining to human intercourse, Oxford University Press. Joseph Schacht, An Introduction to Islamic Law, Oxford Clarendon Press, 1973.

Any book about Islamic Law will present and discuss hadiths.

In my humble opinion, it is unreasonable to require a knowledgable scholars of Islam to present a citation to an English secondary reference, quoting a particular hadith.

QamarBurtuqali (talk) 02:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)QamarBurtuqali