Farhad Shafti: Stoning and Veiling in Islam | The Perspective of the Qur'an
In this interview I sit down with Dr. Farhad Shafti to discuss the controversial issues of stoning and veiling in Islam as well as the methodologies used by various Muslim scholars in order to come to a ruling on these matters.
Dr. Shafti has studied Islam for the past 30 years in a number of different settings. He received a formal traditional education at the Islamic Seminary of Chizar in Tehran (1984 - 1989), he continued his studies from 2004-2015 under Javed Ghamidi and recieved his second Ph.D. in 2016 on the interpretation of the Qur'an from the University of Edinburgh. Alongside his work in Islamic Studies he is a lecturer at the University of Glasgow in Management Science and Service Operations.
If you would like to get in touch with Dr. Shafti or read more of his work you can find his websites below:
Website for English speaking: www.exploring-islam.com
Telegram for Farsi speaking: t.me/farhadshafti
May Allah bless, guide and protect and make all misunderstandings and injustice disappear for all of of us .
Brother ,please try to be on topic.
Ameen
It is the best explanation pertaining to the topics of stonning and veiling. Farhad Shafti view is intellectual and rationale. I am very keen to hear his views on other topics relevant to Muslims living in West
Thank you both for a wonderful and enlightening installment of Exploring the Qur’an and the Bible.
Reynolds is a dirty Missionary, donkeys are better than such people because animals don't lie about God being triune, but Reynolds does.
fascinating to hear a different perspective.
At 56.07 Prof Gabriel use the word ‘ambiguous’.
Actually according to Dr Hani another Quranic expert the word ‘ambiguous’has been wrongfully attributed to the translation of the word ‘mutasyabih’.It’s real meaning is likely ‘similar’.So in your connotation regarding a verse when you tried to interpret it you can’t apply the ambiguity context.It appears that early and classical muffasirun (exegesis)has been wrong in choosing the meaning of the word
Stoning could mean throwing miniscule stones ,perhaps like grains of sand for the metaphorical death of a prohibited act.
If you're gonna use Hadith to accept stoning, then use the concept of stoning from the hadith itself.
Could you give me the concept of stoning from God himself ?
@@ultrasignificantfootnote3378 if you accept the authority of authentic hadiths, then the prophet got the command from God.
@@Wassalaam92 what is stoning according to hadith exactly ? Who should throw the stones, how big are the stones, and should the stones be blessed by Allah,before throwing them , these are just a few questions, that need answers.But there are many more questions.
Scripturally speaking, to stone means to put to death by throwing stones at a person.
In view of all these « variants » since the professor doesn’t like the word ambiguities one couldn’t resist to mention Quran 4:82 : Do they not ponder about the Qur'an? Had it been from any other than Allah, they would surely have found in it much inconsistency.
If an Islamic sharia court decides stoning should be done , how do they get volunteers , can anyone reject ? I have the suspition the rejection of such a command is equal to apostacy.
You speak like a westerner. Most (people) would enjoy such a spectacle and would compete to get a front seat.
@@jma7600 would you throw stones at the guilty person to kill them yourself ?
@@ultrasignificantfootnote3378Would you throw stones at Hitler to kill him if he had not offed himself and went thru a trial and was convicted?
@@jma7600 I am a westerner, what is wrong with that ?
I have some questions about stoning : Should the stones be thrown with the right or the left hand ? 2) Is it permissible to throw the stones in the Quibla direction ? 3) What kind of rocks should be used, are artificial rocks made of concrete permissable ? 4)What happens when people mis the target , was that the will of Allah ? 5)How do they find the people to throw the rocks, what happens if they refuse ?.
In regards to 52:45 -> tertullian said in “on the veiling of virgins” that the heathen women of Arabia covered their face so that only one eye showed.
source please
Zaniyat: is female Zani: is male
It would make it easier to go straight to the hudd laws in the sharia texts. Umdat al Salik clearly shows that stoning women to death is legal in Islam, along with a host of other things the West considers unacceptable. Is there a reason the ijma is not explored by combing through these sharia mauals?
As far as I understand, this KZhead channel is dedicated to the academic and historical critical study of the roots and sources of Islam. It is not meant to take the claims of Muslim scholars or "sharia manuals" (whatever that may be) that arose many many centuries later at face value. In my humble opinion it is obvious that every single religion goes through long phases of construction and it can not be assumed that the religious practices and opinions of the scholars of later centuries are the same as those of the original founding communities. That is true for almost every single religion, Christianity as much as Islam. Documenting such a process is exactly what this video is about, I would say.
Stoning is not in Islam, but an interpolation from, Jewdism if I'm not mistaken.
Yes, hudud penalties are prohibitive in Islam, but unlike modern Western laws, Shari'a actually requires 4 credible witnesses with reputations above reproach. While in the "modern" West, you can put someone on death row from the eyewitness of a proven liar, without any corroborating evidence, because the jury "thinks" he sounded credible. And in the case of theft, there are over 70 conditions to be met, including that the perpetrator is not impoverished, and is intended for violent career criminals only. (Now please don't tell me how current so-called Islamic states behave, because certainly they don't follow Shari'a). And the fact that the hudud penalties were rarely enacted in the early centuries of Islam, proves that these were meant to be preventative, particularly given the importance of personal privacy in shari'a.
@@IMHS21 Go to the law books and quote them. Your opinions are not valid sources. Only aidlamix countries stone people
@@arbitScaleModels The only remaining Western country to have the death penalty is the US, and there are vast procedural protections for defendants in death penalty cases.
Apparently nakedness was common at the time of the prophet, they even circumambulated the Kaaba naked and Mohammad never objected to the practice. Today, as a remnant of that, it is forbidden to put underwear when performing the hajj.
Why is it impossible for God to speak clearly enough so that we can be spared this theology/verbiage?
Probably because God is an imaginairy being and his attributes are subjective to the person that is imagining him.
@@ultrasignificantfootnote3378 shhhh...don't tell the rest
Even the most CLEAR text will have varying opinions. It's the nature of man. Humans will differ on the most basic of things. Just imagine, God said so clearly that God is ONE, yet humans come along and invent the trinity and other poytheistic concepts whilst accepting that He is One.
@@Wassalaam92 exactly as it would be if humans concocted the whole mess up. It's very clear. Embarrassingly clear.
@@IosifStalin2 I disagree with most all religions because they teach things that are cruel to humans. Mainly, that Jehovah CAUSES suffering. Nevertheless, at least they generally acknowledge what you deny, that there is a higher power who made the universe. And I call THAT embarassingly obvious.