you made no point at all other than making a fool of yourself by INSISTING----
' if muhummad did not invent stoning people, then it is not part of shariah law
You really want to play this degree of stupid?
I said no such things. I said, since we can prove honor killing (and specifically stoning as well) existed long before Islam did --- then it cannot be described as "Islamic". Mohammad's birth date is simply a convenient time marker to prove that, because since he invented Islam, before him there is no Islam, therefore nothing before him is "Islamic". It isn't even ******* RELIGIOUS -- Islam or any other.
And no it's not part of "Sharia". That was established way backthread. Requoting from post 18:
There is no mention of honour killing in the Quran or Hadiths. Honour killing, in Islamic definitions, refers specifically to extra-legal punishment by the family against a woman, and is forbidden by the Sharia (Islamic law). Religious authorities disagree with extra punishments such as honour killing and prohibit it, so the practice of it is a cultural and not a religious issue. However, since Islam has influence over vast numbers of Muslims in many countries and from many cultures, some use Islam to justify honour killing even though there is no support for honour killing in Islam. (post 18, op cit)
Now, one can argue that
governments of Islamic countries don't do enough to quell this (and other) violence against women, but that's government, not religion, and India -- a country where along with Pakistan, HBV takes place more than any other country, has the same complaint (also linked earlier here). India clearly has no "Sharia law" and its HBV occurrences manifest primarily in Hindu and Sikh communities -- two religions that have nothing to do with Islam -- and which also prohibit the practice. But it cannot be described as a "Hindu" or "Sikh" practice either because once again ---
it's not related to religion. It's related to
social structure.
There's far more to humans that what their religion is. Just because some culture employs some practice, and that same culture also largely practices "Religion X",
does not make the latter the origin of the former. Take a contemporary American problem, let's say mass shootings: If the US is a predominantly Christian (or Judeo-Christian) country, are we to conclude that "mass shooting is prescribed by Christian Law?
Same thing.
As for whatever leeway might be given the populace by those Islamic governments -- that's based not on Sharia but on Napoleonic Codes:
>> With the exception of Iran, laws which allow for ‘honour’ killing are not derived from Islamic precepts, but from the penal codes of the Napoleonic Empire which legislated for crimes of ‘passion.’ Such laws have come under sustained opposition from women’s rights activists leading to some reforms: the Kurdistan Region of Iraq removed the provision for lighter sentencing for killers with ‘honourable’ motives in 2002 – although it remains in force in the rest of Iraq; Syria has recently increased the minimum sentence for an ‘honour’ killer from one year to two; and Palestine has recently removed the provision which it inherited from Jordanian law in the face of a particularly gruesome high-profile murder. However, such changes have limited applicability where these are not followed through by the criminal justice system, which may still tend to overlook murders and excuse their perpetrators. The availability of reduced sentencing causes murders which had financial or other motives to be represented as related to ‘honour’ so that the perpetrators of unrelated crimes can benefit from the reduced sentencing applied to ‘honour’. << ---
HBV Awareness.com
Maybe the stones were more convenient. It seems to me that stoning is a cultural practice that was incorporated into these religions as a means of being relevant to the culture.
Something like that -- it was a cultural practice already extant, but it's not a religious practice anyway, so it wasn't incorporated into any religion --- it simply predated the various religions (Islam, Judaism, Christianism, Hinduism, Sikhism) and continued in spite of them. And by "it" I'm still talking "honor" based violence (HBV) whether by stoning or other means.
But as it's not a practice OF any of these religions and it simply practiced in spite of them (they all prohibit it) ---- it's not a practice related to religion anyway.
What these morons are doing is taking two things that exist simultaneously among the same peoples and dishonestly concluding that one is the cause of the other. Like saying Christianity invented the Easter bunny. They completely ignore (because it's inconvenient to their bigotry) that HBV was already around long before the religions, and would have us pretend that Tuesday follows Thursday, as it were.
