Talk:Hudud

message: I wish I had reference but I remember articles on some murder trials in Saudi Arabia (I think) where the family of the murder victim decided the punishement, or even if there was to be a punishment.
There was even some speculation that if an orphan was murdered there would be no punishment, because there'd be no family to decide punishment.
I've read similar articles about Yemen were murder disputes are sometimes solved with money.
And this also explains why honor killings aren't punished, because the family that would decide punishment IS the agent of murder in those cases.
Clearly the article is wrong.  Murder is treated as a civil offense against a family where that family decides the punishment, not as a high crime at all.
Theft, on the other hand is treated as a high crime as all of those pictures of amputated hands attest to.
Is there anyone working on this article who actually knows what's going on?
:This article is somewhat inaccurate in its description of hadd punishments - standard murder isn't something for which there is a hadd (prescribed) punishment, but rather a tazir (discretionary) one. I will update this article soon and expand it. Squigglypuff
:Hi, I have corrected this page, although somebody undid my corrections almost immediately. I have made them again. Commenter here is right - murder is not a hadd offense, it is conceived as a private dispute between murderer and victim's heirs. It's not ta'zir, however, as ta'zir is punishment at the discretion of the judge. The heirs have the discretion in the case of murder. They are entitled to compensation, and can also demand retaliation (i.e. execution) if they want (see qisas). However, it's not necessarily the case that if there are no heirs there is no punishment - in such circumstances the sovereign would take over the role of the heirs (and thus be entitled to the blood-money as well as to execute the murderer). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.122.253.229 (talk) 11:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This article seems to contradict practice

message: Would it be fair to say that these are functionally equivalent to felonies? DS 13:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not exactly.  It's funny because it includes murder, a felony under American (and most) legal systems, and then it includes adultery, which isn't a crime under most western legal systems.  So, maybe it means felony and they have very different standards.  I did see it described as "crimes agaisnt God".  That these are the crimes that God abhors the most according to Islam and seen in that light it might be a felony but I think it would be misleading to put that because it will give people the notion of felony as they are stated under western law. gren 14:01, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Hmm

message: I am adding the NPOV template because I feel that as long as this article is predominantly editted by me it cannot be neutral.  Therefore when this article grows in size and has more editors then it can be removed hopefully. gren 14:01, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: A while I ago I removed a long addition to the article by an anon; it was incorrectly formatted, contained a lot of (admittedly mostly minor) grammatical and spelling errors, had no Wiki-links, and was couched in PoV language.  Instead of discussing it, the anon. launched a series of personal attacks on me, and refused to enter into any sort of adult discussion.  Nevertheless, it seems a pity to let the poor manners of one person to prevent the addition of possibly useful information, so here's the section, copy-edited, wikified, and NPoVed (as far as I'm able to judge).  My main worry now is that it overbalances the article, so that its addition would create a PoV.  Any comments?
:==Adultery== 
:The hudud punishment for adultery – stoning to death – is often regarded with horror by non-Muslims and some Muslims alike. Muslim apologists point to the Bible, and especially to Torah, which prescribe the same basic punishment for adultery; Islam however, the proponents of this law argue, is more just in this respect than Christianity or Judaism, because it demands the observation of the act of adultery by four (male) witnesses. Because this is almost never likely to be practically possible, it is argued that death by stoning is in practice never likely to be prescribed.
:Aside from the moral aspect, and the question of why a god would prescribe a punishment so brutal for any crime, there is an interesting issue of whether this punishment is rightfully incorporated into Islam. The Qur'an stipulates one hundred lashes for the act of zina (in Arabic "zina" refers to both fornication and adultery). It was in the reign of Umar, a caliph after Muhammad's death, that stoning for adultery was introduced.
:The reason given by Umar was that there had existed a verse in the Qur'an that prescribed death by stoning. Before the compilation of the Qur'an in one body under Uthman, another caliph, individual verses were written on parchments, cow hides, and the like.  Umar asserted that this verse, which abrogated the existing Quranic verse, had been eaten by a goat.  The verse was not recalled by anyone else at the time; scholars remain sceptical about its existence, and it has over time come to be known as the "Verse of Stoning".
:Despite these questionable issues surrounding this hudud law, stoning to death for adultery has become embedded in Sharia law. The reasons given by contemporary Islamic scholars for continuing with stoning despite the Quran's prescription of one hundred lashes for adultery is that, since "zina" in Arabic can refer to both fornication and adultery, the Quran is in this respect referring to fornication. Consequently fornication is punishable under hudud law by one hundred lashes, whereas stoning to death remains the punishment for adultery.
The anon added (unwikified and unformatted, of course) an item to the references, implying that this is where the material comes from: The Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam, Gibb, Royal Dutch Press.
Can anyone verify the material, and does nayone have any thoughts about placing it in the article? --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 09:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Comments.  I see no reason for is often regarded with horror by non-Muslims and some Muslims alike -- it will be regarded how it is and that seems unnecessary and unsourceable.  I am sure that many do re-act that way but I don't think it should be stated.  stoning to death for adultery has become embedded in Sharia law is very dubious because there are differen instantiations of sharia and while some (such as Sudan I believe) may believe that saying that it is embedded in sharia is making a claim that all Muslims believe that (sharia being God's law and Muslims following that).  There has been notable opposition to this from Tariq Ramadan and this is way too overspimplistic for such a complex issue.  We would need to break that down into a more "who believes what" section.  Other than that I can't really comment since I don't know... but, of course for something this controversial (and I would say damning of whatever forms of Islam support it) must be well cited and be sure not to overgeneralize.  I am sure people who don't support stoning don't want to be portrayed as if they do. gren グレン 12:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anon's addition 

message: Hi all, i'd like to bring everyone's attention to this article:
http://jsmawais.googlepages.com/Lies.htm
To see if they could add portions to this Hudud article based on it. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.127.146.89 (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. Has to a WP:Reliable Source to get in wikipedia. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lies and Distortion by Media about Hudood Ordinance 

message: There was almost word-for-word duplication of a section of 'Adultery' in 'The explanations given for the severity of punishments'. Replaced this with a link to the previous section. -- Ghostreveries 16:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessary duplication 

message: I intend to re-write this section or at least make a major revision. It seems most of these "explanations" are from either apologists or non-muslims whose views, understandably, are not favored by the large majority of the Muslim community. If we were to provide true information of a Religion, it can only be sought and explained best by its scholars. However for the benefit of those who want information on how "western" scholars think about this particular topic, a separate heading could be made???
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamdhanborgi (talk • contribs) 03:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanations for punishments 

message: I've edited this page to reflect some of the disagreement among Muslim scholars in regards to stoning for adultery. This issue is not nearly as clear-cut as this article states it to be. Legitimate, orthodox scholars are split. Hadith to support stoning as a punishment adultery are known to be weak, and there is a Hadith (not sure of the citation) where Caliph Umar thought that stoning for adulterers was in the Qur'an and he was looking for the verse. Clearly, if the Prophet Muhammad (sallahu `alayhi wa salaam - I had to type this, as I am a Muslim) had said in legitimate Hadith that adulterers are to be stoned, Umar would not have had to look for the Qur'an verse to prove his thinking. He would've used the statement of the Prophet.
Unfortunately, I've only been able to reference an unorthodox scholar's fatwa. This scholar is, I believe, a Qur'an-alone Muslim. However, as I've said, there are plenty of orthodox and legitimate scholars who argue with the Qur'an and with Hadith to prove their point that stoning for adultery is a bid`ah, or a forbidden innovation as such an action was not practiced by the Prophet nor commanded by Allah. A statement by Hanbal to say that "all scholars agree that stoning is the prescribed punishment" does nothing to support that claim. It's his opinion, and it is inaccurate as many scholars who follow a madhab or who are Salafi, both at Hanbal's time and now, have argued that stoning is not the prescribed punishment for adultery.
So, in the interest of truthfulness, I ask for others to expand on the various opinions regarding the actual prescribed punishment for adultery, and I ask for others to make a section in this article dedicated to these differences in opinion. As it stands now, it seems someone who believes stoning IS the prescribed punishment is trying to force his/her views as the only view, when this is not true in the least bit. SOW93 (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adultery 

message: Crimes? or Punishments?
Googling around all the definitions I came across say punishments ...  although they don't make a big deal about distinguishing. As a consequence I have done some rewriting. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: What is Hudud?

message: I see secondary WP:RS with quotes from primary texts as suggested under WP:PSTS. So what is the problem? I welcome an explanation of "religious primary" and other tags on this talk page, so that we can improve the article together. RLoutfy (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The Qur'an and Hadith sections are interpreting primary sources, I think (if I'm not mistaken) that it's  who added it, I'm pinging him to justify. As for the other  tag is because many claims are left uncited, or poorly cited, or their citations aren't specified enough. (e.g. Citation X, pp.1-68, highly unspecific) --CounterTime (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  By the way, why did you move those cites? --CounterTime (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious primary and other tags need to be explained 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Hudud. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081128185746/http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muwatta/041.mmt.html to http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muwatta/041.mmt.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I included in the intro the literal definition of hadood. It is not an “Islamic” term, since Islam is not a language. It is an Arabic word that predates Islam, later adopted by Islamic scholars and lawmakers. The translation of the word should not be distorted, it is still currently being used to imply the words “borders” and “limitations”.  LebaneseBebe (talk) 07:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: As per the cited sources, this is an article about the Islamic legal term, not about the Arabic word in general. WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The common, literal sense of the word was already given in the parentheses. The other changes were also not an improvement. I don't know what the source you cited says, exactly, as you haven't given a page number (see WP:CITEHOW), but why would we use this source at all? It's not clear that it's even reliable, and at best it's a weak tertiary source which is WP:UNDUE next to the standard academic references cited here. There's no need to qualify religious notions as "alleged" when it's clear that it's what's being discussed. As for the alternative transliteration, this is not the place to cite all the conceivable romanizations; the goal here is to help a casual reader by confirming that another prominent transliteration they may have come across refers to the same notion. "Hdood" is a colloquial pronunciation that only Arabic speakers would tend to use, and they aren't the intended audience of this gloss. Eperoton (talk) 03:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That particular source is definitely completely unreliable. See archive 162 of WP:RSN where a decision was made to remove all references to any book from that series on sight. That source is a mirror of Wikipedia, copied by a computer program that copies in a completely indiscriminate fashion and which cannot vouch for the accuracy of what it copies. James500 (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hdood literal meaning