And somebody mistook this for Islam?
Anyone who looks closely at this tradition can tell it is not Islam. Nor is it Judaism or Christianity, even though both Christians and Jews were known to do the same to their women.
What this is is an ancient tradition that was accepted into a religion to control women under the guise of "family honor" or similar weasel words designed to protect the reputation of men at the expense of the lives of women.
Carrying out such a tradition is not democracy but a devilish form of oppression against women that would offend even Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Jesus, and Muhammed.
If I as a Buddhist know this, then why not a Christian, a Jew or a Muslim?
Yet this is the way I have as a kid: once when invited to a girl's place as a boy of 17, I objected to visiting her, saying, "What if the neighbours assumed the worst?" The girl replied "Nothing would happen anyway, so no one cares about the neighbours."
Because of the way I was raised, it was hard for me to visit her if she was unmarried and under 30. This is because before these post-modern times, society would think something was up if a man visited a young woman. Indeed, her reputation could be "ruined" by devilish gossip.
Today, people think nothing of such gossip and make light of rumors, because such talk is not inspired by any intention to protect both the man and the woman, but rather to make both of them look bad, just so the gossiper can look good.
Therefore, when a rumor is aimed to ruin a woman's reputation, it is hypocrisy to make it seem as though the man is some sex god. Such idle gossip is indeed devilish. As well, I condemn mainstream media when it does the same to celebrities.
FWIW IDC about Selena Gomez's chastity nor do I care about Justin Bieber's slide into the festivities that pass for modern life in Hollywood. Nor do I care about what passes for truth as broadcast by mainstream media. It is all propaganda designed to get people talking, so their own lives don't seem boring and dull.
Likewise, how can a religion be beneficial when it holds on to ancient traditions that oppress women in such a way?
A wise man once said "Let those who are without sin cast the first stone." This excludes men and women over the age of majority. Only children ought to be allow to stone that sinner. Surely this is a laughable suggestion, but is apt.
How does stoning make the participants become without sin? For murder is a sin, even when it is excluded as punishment for a crime concocted by rumors. It is a devilish thing to then make an exception to murder as capital punishment for a sin, when the only sin in most Abrahamic religions is to forget God Almighty.
Once does not forget God when one is stoning, for a representative of God commands his loyal flock to stone. It is thus not a sin to kill someone when God speaks through that representative. So then, could this be why Islamists kill? Could this be why David Koresh formed a cult?
And is this why the Hebrews slew Canaanites?
After careful consideration of the concept of such punishment for a sin, I am convinced that the punishment does not fit the crime since it promotes death and also the oppression of women. Additionally, it makes a man seem to be unable to control himself in the presence of a woman. As a result, I would not trust that man in a crowd of women. He could be the death of them yet.
Even so, I am not going to a young woman's place alone even if invited, because society might misunderstand my intentions.