Muhammad The Greatest: A comparative study

[Kodanshi]

I don't believe that the prophet pbuh killed anyone solely for changing their beliefs but it was associated with other crimes like treason.

I waited for this! When I wrote my treatise on the punishment and execution of apostates I left out a couple of points, waiting to add them in as soon as someone (as they usually and predictably do) mentioned treason. So without further ado…

To label a change in a belief as commensurate with treason represents the height of illogicality. It indicates nothing other than a dismissal of a previously held philosophical position. When comparing apostasy to treason, the only proportionate analogy comes with a person renouncing his/her citizenship of any nation — hardly an act worthy of capital punishment.

A final point, in the form of two queries: in a secular and liberal democratic society (in which the general belief and value of democracy and libertarianism binds the state together), does a person disagreeing with democracy or libertarianism constitute having committed treason? Should such a person suffer threats of capital punishment?

 

[Sahar]

I waited for this! When I wrote my treatise on the punishment and execution of apostates I left out a couple of points, waiting to add them in as soon as someone (as they usually and predictably do) mentioned treason. So without further ado…

To label a change in a belief as commensurate with treason represents the height of illogicality. It indicates nothing other than a dismissal of a previously held philosophical position. When comparing apostasy to treason, the only proportionate analogy comes with a person renouncing his/her citizenship of any nation — hardly an act worthy of capital punishment.

A final point, in the form of two queries: in a secular and liberal democratic society (in which the general belief and value of democracy and libertarianism binds the state together), does a person disagreeing with democracy or libertarianism constitute having committed treason? Should such a person suffer threats of capital punishment?

Turning against your country in which you're a citizen and joining the country's enemy (which threatens its national security and its existence) and fighting against it is not a treason?! :sarcastic So if this is not high treason, what's it exactly?

 

[Kodanshi]

But when you apostate you don’t do that. If you want to make a country–based analogy then it goes like this: the United Kingdom (where I live) supports democracy and first past the post elections. If I said I didn’t believe in that and that I supported rule by a King and proportional representation — would that mean I’d have committed treason? Ridiculous.

 

[ProudMuslim]

Yes, Muslim men can marry non-Muslim women, but they have prohibited Muslim women from marry non-Muslim men. How is that fair?

First of all you are changing the topic now from killing non-Muslim to why Muslim women can’t marry non-Muslim men.

Anyway, to answer your question yes it is so fair. Always try to educate yourself on a topic before jumping to conclusion.

To begin with interfaith marriages are not encouraged in Islam because of their obvious problems. They are allowed for Men under certain circumstances and the non-Muslim woman should either be a Jewish or a Christian, nothing outside those faiths. The non-Muslim woman must agree that her children will be raised as Muslims before marrying the Muslim man, otherwise the marriage will not be proceeded. Do you understand this important point? The non-Muslim woman will only be married to the Muslim man if she agrees to raise the children as Muslims under all circumstances and never install anti-Islamic values like eating pork or drinking alcohol.

By not allowing Muslim women from marrying non-Muslim men is intended to protect the Muslim women and not to subjugate them. The best explanation give to this question has been answered by someone in another forum

1) a muslim woman should obey her husband, which makes it very difficult to practice in reality if the husband doesn't have the same values
2) a muslim man doesn't have to abide by any of the islamic rulings governing marriage, so the woman is in considerable disadvantage (ie: eating halaal, raising kids, learning about the deen, wearing proper hijaab, circumcision, going to 7ajj), especially given #1
3) since he isn't required to abide by islamic law, he could earn 7araam money, and if she isn't working, that means that she won't be able to go to 7ajj, her food and sustenance will not be 7alaal, etc.
4) a muslim woman has the right to a mahr (bridal gift) and several guarantees in case of divorce, which would not be guaranteed by any imaam since he has no authority over the non-muslim husband
5) a muslim woman may return her mahr if she decides to divorce her husband, which is, in my understanding, her only recourse if he REFUSES to divorce her with full rights, and this dissolution would be inapplicable in a marriage to a man who a) didn't give a mahr, b) doesn't recognize this sort of dissolution, c) cannot be forced to recognize it
6) the husband is, in islam, the one responsible for the maintenance, safety and growth of the wife and kids, if he's earning 7araam, doesn't believe in the deen and can't be held accountable, how can the woman protect herself, grow as a muslimah (as we are all obliged to do), and raise her kids as muslims?

The flip side is if the husband is so incredibly nice that he allows all this, fact remains, that it's his word against hers, he has no legal nor moral obligation to uphold this or any marital agreement based in a religion he doesn't ascribe to. and we all have some idea of how ugly divorces can get. even if she works and pays for her own food and clothing and decides to go to 7ajj on her own money, she would not be able to go because she needs a ma7ram to go with her (unless she goes with her father or adult brother or son). which means that she has given up on one of the basic rights of muslim wives: the maintenance and protection of her husband.

finally: if a woman can't count on her husband to raise her kids as muslims with her, help her to become a better muslim, feed or clothe her in a 7alaal way, protect her from all that is considered harmful (especially for women) in islam, and yet she as a muslimah is still obliged to keep her end of the bargain (ie obey him, take care of him, protect his honor and property, pray, give zakah, fast and perform 7ajj), then where's the sakeenah of marriage? what's the point? she'd be better off alone!!![/quote]

The Muslim man in the other hand, believe in the divinity of Judaism and Christianity and will respect his wife religious rights. In fact he will also offer her rights that were not given to her in her religion but have been secured according to the Sharia Law.

And then there many cases, where non-Muslim women decided divorce. In the Western society, the women usually get the custody of the children, regardless of race or religion.

And you say that with pride? How is that equality? That is disgustingly unfair to the fathers? There is nothing you need to brag about.

Muslim men have no respect for our law,

If anything it will be the non-Muslim woman who has no respect for the pact she made when she got married to the Muslim man. Usually divorcee non-Muslim women try to take the kids away from their fathers and raise them as non-Muslims. That is what abhorring. No one forced her to marry a Muslim man and certainly no one has forced her to accept the condition of such marriage. If she has given herself the right to break the pact it does not make him any worse when he abducts the children.

On a related note, I could easily go on and on about how many non-Muslims men and women have no respect for our laws in our countries.

abduct the children and go to a Muslim country, so that the ex-wives would never see their children again. If the women did the same thing, abducting the children and bring them back to the country they were born, what do you think the Islamic law would do to the women? No, your law is not fair, and will never fair to the women, because they have less right, especially if they divorce their Muslim husbands. It's ok for Muslim ex-husband to break the law, but not ok if she break the law to get her children back. It is disgustingly unfair and oppressive law.

It is equally disgusting to forbid the children from either parent.

What is disgustingly unfair is to promise someone in front of a religious figure and witnesses on raising children on certain way and then back off and change her mind all while playing victim and clinging to her country’s unfair law. The fact is children should be raised by both parents, but if divorce is inevitable then pacts and conditions should be respected and honored just like how pre-nups are honored and imposed by the law.

And yes our law is fair. Do you realize what are you doing here? You as an unbeliever male is worrying about my rights in Islam when I think you should worry about the women in Western countries who are being treated nothing more than sexual objects.

You yourself have just contradict yourself about both genders being equal. There's no equality if completely different rules applied to different gender.

No I am not contradicting myself but I do hope you are not one of those who in the name of equality just deny the physical, mental and psychological difference between the genders. The logic says if we are ought to be totally equal, there would not be a man and a woman, one gender will suffice. You are not doing women any favor when you defeminize them nor to men when you emasculate them. We were created to complement each other, not to compete with each other. If you really understand this, you will understand that genders are created to be different yet equally important.

Non-believers required more evidences and facts than just truth.

Everything to non-believers are measured by materialistic means, if you don’t see it then you don’t believe it.

 

[ProudMuslim]

Have you seen one? Can you prove to me that they exist?

Some claim they have seen them, but what is the point of your question when you clearly not going to believe it unless you have seen them with your own eyes?

What if a Muslim woman falls in love with non-Muslim man? Is really any business of yours or that of the religion whether they marry or not? Must she then be forced to marry old Muslim man that she doesn't love?

Oh give me a break. It is forbidden in Islam to force someone to get married. So if this Muslim woman loves this non-Muslim guy more than loving God then she can do whatever she wants. She should not expect her marriage to be considered Islamic or be performed by an imam. It is her choice.

If a Muslim woman can't marry a non-Muslim, then the same rule should apply to Muslim men. Otherwise there law should be discarded, and Muslim women should freely able to marry non-Muslim men just like the way Muslim men do.

I’m sure you will also say, if the man must pay dowry to the female she should do the same to him, and if the man must work and sponsor the family then she also must do the same? If the man can bear his chest, the woman can do the same? Islam does not work like that.
Even in your man-made laws you make a difference between a man and woman just like you admitted in the case of divorce where the woman takes the kids! Equality does not have to conform to your standards/definitions to be considered equality.

But when you apostate you don’t do that. If you want to make a country–based analogy then it goes like this: the United Kingdom (where I live) supports democracy and first past the post elections. If I said I didn’t believe in that and that I supported rule by a King and proportional representation — would that mean I’d have committed treason? Ridiculous.

How does this interpretation by any means equate to this defintition of treason

Turning against your country in which you're a citizen and joining the country's enemy (which threatens its national security and its existence) and fighting against it is not a treason?! :sarcastic So if this is not high treason, what's it exactly?

 

[Fatihah]

They are there at the correct hyperlinks that I gave. They are, however, mostly long ahadith so you may need to actually read the whole thing… In fact, let me even post some screenshots! Back in a moment…

EDIT: do muslims lie so habitually that you automatically assume everyone else does? I’ve taken screenshots of the page, HIGHLIGHTED the appropriate passages from the ahadith and even left in the address bar so you can see the exact hadith book, volume and hadith number itself as well as the full address!

http://i43.tinypic.com/jfge8m.jpg - seal of prophethood
http://i43.tinypic.com/2zits7q.jpg - archery
http://i40.tinypic.com/11tor9s.jpg - ‘Aishah’s beating.

It seems plainly obvious to me that you either didn’t allow the page to load fully, or else you didn’t read the whole hadith on account of its length. And why would you? Like a lot of passages in the Qur’�n the ahadith contain a lot of mundane and banal material.

Response: In your original post you said the following:

��and Bingo was his name!�

Yes, and they both contain a lot of questionable material which gives anyone a right to question Muhammad�s status as the so�called ideal man. Sahih Muslim, for example, contains a hadith in which �Aishah herself states Muhammad struck her in the chest and caused her pain. He did it because she followed him at night while he tried to sneak to another wife�s house, but regardless � he hit her. Yet many muslims claim Muhammad never struck a woman.

Response: That's a blatant lie. The hadith does not say that. Why do you have to lie? Al hamdu lilah!! There is no need to even go any further. You have been caught out and have to fabricate a hadith. Why? Because even you know the truth. Otherwise you wouldn't have to put your own words in the text.

Again you said:
[*]That the gigantic mole on Muhammad�s back proved his status as a prophet of god (the actual �seal� of prophets)

Why are you adding to the text? The hadith does not say that it's a big gigantic mole that proves his status as a prophet of God. These are your own words. A blatant liar.

Quote: Kodanshi
[*]That anyone who takes up archery and stops practising it has, in effect, apostated from Isl�m(End quote)

The word apostate is not there. The good thing about this is that it's all in black and white for everyone on RF to see that you had to blatantly lie and fabricate the hadiths just to make yourself look good. There is no need to even go any further in this conversation. Al hamdu lilah.

 

[Sahar]

But when you apostate you don’t do that. If you want to make a country–based analogy then it goes like this: the United Kingdom (where I live) supports democracy and first past the post elections. If I said I didn’t believe in that and that I supported rule by a King and proportional representation — would that mean I’d have committed treason? Ridiculous.

Changing your belief with preserving your loyalty to the nation, it's not punishable. What is punishable is changing your belief with disloyalty to your nation and turning against it (what allowed this kind of association to happen is nature of the circumstances at the prophet's time then). I repeated myself...

In other words; changing the belief in itself has no worldly punishment and I am a firm believer of this.

 

[Kodanshi]

Response: That's a blatant lie. The hadith does not say that. Why do you have to lie? Al hamdu lilah!! There is no need to even go any further. You have been caught out and have to fabricate a hadith. Why? Because even you know the truth. Otherwise you wouldn't have to put your own words in the text.

I've shown you a screenshot of the hadith and even highlighted the bit where he strikes her. How can you not see what lies plainly in front of you? This is how muslims respond when faced with clear evidence? Good lord, there is no point in debating with you any longer!

But to reiterate:

http://i40.tinypic.com/11tor9s.jpg

Sahih Muslim, Book 4, number 2127. It’s a long hadith related by ‘Aishah’s son about his mother. Muhammad bin Qais states ‘Aishah related the hadith. The bit I highlighted, and this time I’ll quote it including before and after, goes like this:

“I [as in ‘Aishah] said: Messenger of Allah [obviously this refers to Muhammad!], may my father and mother be ransom for you, and then I told him (the whole story). He [Muhammad, obviously] said: Was it the darkness (of your shadow) that I saw in front of me? I said: Yes. He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you? ”

How much more plain can I make it? It really IS true that faith blinds you to reality…

 

[gnostic]

No I am not contradicting myself but I do hope you are not one of those who in the name of equality just deny the physical, mental and psychological difference between the genders. The logic says if we are ought to be totally equal, there would not be a man and a woman, one gender will suffice. You are not doing women any favor when you defeminize them nor to men when you emasculate them. We were created to complement each other, not to compete with each other. If you really understand this, you will understand that genders are created to be different yet equally important.

To apply a different law to a woman, simply because of her gender, and denying her rights to equality is sexist, pure and simple.

Islam and Islamic culture is making a woman, like wife, as nothing more than a slave or a dog.

You yourself quoted:

1) a muslim woman should obey her husband, which makes it very difficult to practice in reality if the husband doesn't have the same values

That's sexist. You (not you personally, since you're female, but a husband) might as well as tell your wife to give commands, "Sit", "Walk", "Roll over" or "Fetch". It is absolutely degrading that for women, regardless of religion or race, would have to obey, like a dog or a slave.

That's not equality. It is slavery.

 

[Kodanshi]

I've shown you a screenshot of the hadith and even highlighted the bit where he strikes her. How can you not see what lies plainly in front of you? This is how muslims respond when faced with clear evidence? Good lord, there is no point in debating with you any longer!

But to reiterate:

http://i40.tinypic.com/11tor9s.jpg

Sahih Muslim, Book 4, number 2127. It’s a long hadith related by ‘Aishah’s son about his mother. Muhammad bin Qais states ‘Aishah related the hadith. The bit I highlighted, and this time I’ll quote it including before and after, goes like this:

“I [as in ‘Aishah] said: Messenger of Allah [obviously this refers to Muhammad!], may my father and mother be ransom for you, and then I told him (the whole story). He [Muhammad, obviously] said: Was it the darkness (of your shadow) that I saw in front of me? I said: Yes. He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you? ”

How much more plain can I make it? It really IS true that faith blinds you to reality…

In fact, your ridiculous reaction and accusations when faced with cold, hard fact pissed me off immensely as I lay in bed last night. So let me restate, once again, the exact hadith I linked you to before:

CRCC: Center For Muslim-Jewish Engagement: Resources: Religious Texts

Tell me, then, if you claim I’ve made that up myself(!) exactly WHAT does that hadith state? Copy & paste it here word for word.

 

[Gharib]

To apply a different law to a woman, simply because of her gender, and denying her rights to equality is sexist, pure and simple.

all non muslim countries are sexist because the toilets of men and women are not the same, so there goes your "equality" in western societies. you have claimed that there is no 'equality' and that it is sexist to apply laws to a person based on gender, so, why are the toilets of men and women different in a western country if both genders are "equal"?

Islam and Islamic culture is making a woman, like wife, as nothing more than a slave or a dog.

why because a woman is not required to go to work?
because she is free all day? or
because she has to take care of the kids?

You yourself quoted:

yes women are to obey their husbands. whats the problem here.
you were a kid once, you had to obey your parents, are you a slave for having to do obey your parents. if you do not obey the rules of your wife and if she doesn't obey yours' then there can be no understanding, so now just because there is an understanding between you two does that mean that one is the slave of th eother? (i don't mean anything personal, but just making a point by using an example)

That's sexist. You (not you personally, since you're female, but a husband) might as well as tell your wife to give commands, "Sit", "Walk", "Roll over" or "Fetch". It is absolutely degrading that for women, regardless of religion or race, would have to obey, like a dog or a slave.

you did obey your parents right? so how many times were you treated like a dog, were you ever tolled to "fetch" a stick, or "roll over". (again i do not mean anything personal, sorry if it may seem like that)

That's not equality. It is slavery

speaking of 'equality' as i can remember you mentioned Australia before, right. so i'm guessing you are from there. correct me if i'm wrong.

i'll ask some questions, and i would like a reply for all of them, if thats no trouble.

1 when was the last time Australia had a female president.
2 when was the last time Australia had a female runner up candidate for the presidential seat
3 and when was the last time that a female was the leader of any presidential party

 

[Kodanshi]

all non muslim countries are sexist because the toilets of men and women are not the same, so there goes your "equality" in western societies. you have claimed that there is no 'equality' and that it is sexist to apply laws to a person based on gender, so, why are the toilets of men and women different in a western country if both genders are "equal"?

What a ridiculous claim. As someone who designed and delivered training courses on Equality, Equal Rights, and Equality of Opportunity, let me point out that ‘equality’ does not mean ‘treating everyone the same’, it means treating everyone according to their individual needs.

Take, for example, someone who needs advice on housing. You wouldn’t treat a blind person the same as someone who spoke only Urdu would you? NO. You’d have Urdu leaflets or someone who speaks Urdu available for the non–English speaker, and tape or Braille available for the visually impaired person.

Similarly here, men and women have separate toilets tailored to their individual needs precisely BECAUSE of equality.

 

[gnostic]

all non muslim countries are sexist because the toilets of men and women are not the same, so there goes your "equality" in western societies. you have claimed that there is no 'equality' and that it is sexist to apply laws to a person based on gender, so, why are the toilets of men and women different in a western country if both genders are "equal"?

:sorry1:

I am perplex of what you are talking about? What does the public toilets have to do with rights and equality?

What do you mean? Is one better than the other? Bigger?

And if you are really interested in equality of public toilets, but I suspect that the women's room are more cleaner than the men's room. I'd try to avoid using men's room if I can.

Is this really the best you come up with?

We are talking about how women's right being lesser than men.

ProudMuslim talk of a woman's anatomy of bearing children, so IT WOULD SEEM that women deserve lesser rights, and must obey husband like a dog or a slave obeying her master.

How is that equality?

And you are talking about men and women toilets, as if this have any bearing what we have discussed so far.

I actually believed that all Abrahamic religions are sexists because they are horribly patriarchal. Patriarchy has never offered equality, because it require the man to be head of the family, hence the wife/mother is subservient to the husband/father.

 

[Gharib]

dear kodanshi

i have made a similar post to your response, just a few pages back, but gnostic is constantly arguing that they all need to be the same, no matter what language they speak nor any dissabilities people might have, they must have the same rules in order to be 'equal', but according to him.

according to me, they can have rights according to their gender, special needs, etc...
so this post has nothing to do with me, go ask gnostic about it, thats what i've been trying to get him to understand, that equality of people does not mean that everyone has to have the exact same laws. men and women are equal but in different ways just as a blind person is equal to a deaf person but in different ways. tell Gnostic about this not me

 

[Fatihah]

I've shown you a screenshot of the hadith and even highlighted the bit where he strikes her. How can you not see what lies plainly in front of you? This is how muslims respond when faced with clear evidence? Good lord, there is no point in debating with you any longer!

But to reiterate:

http://i40.tinypic.com/11tor9s.jpg

Sahih Muslim, Book 4, number 2127. It’s a long hadith related by ‘Aishah’s son about his mother. Muhammad bin Qais states ‘Aishah related the hadith. The bit I highlighted, and this time I’ll quote it including before and after, goes like this:

“I [as in ‘Aishah] said: Messenger of Allah [obviously this refers to Muhammad!], may my father and mother be ransom for you, and then I told him (the whole story). He [Muhammad, obviously] said: Was it the darkness (of your shadow) that I saw in front of me? I said: Yes. He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you? ”

How much more plain can I make it? It really IS true that faith blinds you to reality…

Response: Wow. Another opportunity to point out your lies already. Except this time you've made it more easier and obvious.

This is what you originally claimed was said in Sahih Muslim:
Sahih Muslim, for example, contains a hadith in which �Aishah herself states Muhammad struck her in the chest and caused her pain. He did it because she followed him at night while he tried to sneak to another wife�s house, but regardless � he hit her. Yet many muslims claim Muhammad never struck a woman(end quote)

Now here is what you said is in Sahih Muslim:

“I [as in ‘Aishah] said: Messenger of Allah [obviously this refers to Muhammad!], may my father and mother be ransom for you, and then I told him (the whole story). He [Muhammad, obviously] said: Was it the darkness (of your shadow) that I saw in front of me? I said: Yes. He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you? ”(End quote)

In the first quote you claimed that the reason for Muhammad striking her was because she was following him as he tried to sneak to another wife's house. Now you've just quoted the hadith and nothing in there says that Muhammad struck her for those reasons. Once again, you are lying and this time you've made it easier for me to point that out. Thanks.

 

[Gharib]

:sorry1:

I am perplex of what you are talking about? What does the public toilets have to do with rights and equality?

are you saying that they have nothing to do with equality?
how can the two genders be equal if the public toilets are not equal?
i and PROUDMUSLIM did tell you several times that both genders are equal but in different ways. it was you who said that there can be no equality if the two genders have different laws. remember. do you wish to see the posts again?

i can't beleive that wich i am reading, all along PROUDMUSLIM and i have been saying the the two genders have equal rights acording to their needs or their anatomy. and know you come up saying that both genders are equal in their own different ways. you just shocked me Gnostic, really really shocked me. :areyoucra


and by the way, you forgot to asnwer my 3 questions at the bottom of my other post, but you ignoring them asnwered the questions. all ther answers are NO NO NO. simple as that. women in Australia are treated as slaves and are not equal to men, the men of Australia cannot bear to be equal to women and under their command and to be treated like slaves.

 

[Gharib]

We are talking about how women's right being lesser than men.

no we are talking about the equality of the 2 genders.
the other part is different, not related to this.

 

[Kodanshi]

In the first quote you claimed that the reason for Muhammad striking her was because she was following him as he tried to sneak to another wife's house. Now you've just quoted the hadith and nothing in there says that Muhammad struck her for those reasons.

OK, so I made a mistake as to why he hit her, but the fact remains that he DID hit her, and it was the reason why I brought it up in the first place, hence why I used the word ‘regardless’. As in it doesn’t matter WHY he hit her, but he hit her nonetheless — which runs counter to the claims of muslims that Muhammad never struck a woman. Typical of muslims to sideline the main issue and concentrate on an small, irrelevant point!

Now please quote me the hadith in full to show that he did NOT hit her as you claim.

dear kodanshi

i have made a similar post to your response, just a few pages back, but gnostic is constantly arguing that they all need to be the same, no matter what language they speak nor any dissabilities people might have, they must have the same rules in order to be 'equal', but according to him.

according to me, they can have rights according to their gender, special needs, etc...
so this post has nothing to do with me, go ask gnostic about it, thats what i've been trying to get him to understand, that equality of people does not mean that everyone has to have the exact same laws. men and women are equal but in different ways just as a blind person is equal to a deaf person but in different ways. tell Gnostic about this not me

Well, I haven’t seen his posts on that, nor yours, but I only wrote that in response to what you stated about toilets. Seriously, if you hold the same view as I do, why did you bring up toilets for men and women as a sign of inequality?

 

[Fatihah]

OK, so I made a mistake as to why he hit her, but the fact remains that he DID hit her, and it was the reason why I brought it up in the first place, hence why I used the word ‘regardless’. As in it doesn’t matter WHY he hit her, but he hit her nonetheless — which runs counter to the claims of muslims that Muhammad never struck a woman. Typical of muslims to sideline the main issue and concentrate on an small, irrelevant point!

Now please quote me the hadith in full to show that he did NOT hit her as you claim.

Response: First and foremost, no main issue was ever established. Secondly, your lying again. Quote any post in which I've said that Muhammad didn't hit her. Why do you insist on lying?

You made a mistake? How? How did you mistakingly distort a hadith after you've read it? This I have to hear.

 

[England my lionheart]

The only means we have of judging whether Muhammed was of good character is the Hadiths and Sunna and by todays standards it does'nt throw positives out at you about him.
Stoning is wrong full stop,its cruel and archaic along with cutting off hands and feet,lashings etc,1400 years ago is where it belongs and this is why Islam needs to change Sharia law Hudd penalties,it needs to be in the present IMHO not stuck in the past.