• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Did Muhammed receive revelation to stone adulterers, commit adultery, then tell his disciples to Shh

firedragon

Veteran Member
I am opening this topic due to the insistence of a person to discuss this topic in an irrelevant one. Thus, this maybe a better place to discuss this.

Someone said.

Whether or not it is recorded in the Quran is irrelevant to the fact that Muhammad claimed to have received the revelation that adulterers should be stoned and he was so sure of the truthfulness of this idea that he performed the deed himself.

Yes - he did tell his followers not to record this particular revelation in the Quran - after the fact - but that looks more like an admission of guilt or cover up than anything else.

So - yes - it was never written in the Quran - but Muhammad taught it as revelation and acted on it - which is more historically relevant.


Thats what this someone said. So these are my questions.

1. What is the historical data that proves Muhammed claimed to have received the revelation that adulterers should be stoned, and he was so sure of the truthfulness of this idea that he performed the deed himself?

2. What is the historical data that proves he told his followers not to record this particular revelation?

3. Please provide evidence that this is historical. What is the analysis done?

It is indeed an interesting topic. So there. Its open.
 

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
I am opening this topic due to the insistence of a person to discuss this topic in an irrelevant one. Thus, this maybe a better place to discuss this.

Someone said.

Whether or not it is recorded in the Quran is irrelevant to the fact that Muhammad claimed to have received the revelation that adulterers should be stoned and he was so sure of the truthfulness of this idea that he performed the deed himself.

Yes - he did tell his followers not to record this particular revelation in the Quran - after the fact - but that looks more like an admission of guilt or cover up than anything else.

So - yes - it was never written in the Quran - but Muhammad taught it as revelation and acted on it - which is more historically relevant.


Thats what this someone said. So these are my questions.

1. What is the historical data that proves Muhammed claimed to have received the revelation that adulterers should be stoned, and he was so sure of the truthfulness of this idea that he performed the deed himself?

2. What is the historical data that proves he told his followers not to record this particular revelation?

3. Please provide evidence that this is historical. What is the analysis done?

It is indeed an interesting topic. So there. Its open.
My thought is, the Quran has punishments for doing wrong things.
For example, if one steals, the punishment prescribed in the Quran is, cutting hand.
It is a valid question, what is the punishment for adultery according to Quran?
In my understanding, Quran confirms whatever in the Torah. So, the punishment of adultery is stoning.
Why it does not say it regarding adultery, but it says the punishment for stealing?
In my understanding, it is because, Quran changed the punishment of stealing from Torah. In Torah, punishment of stealing is not cutting hand.
God abrogated whatever He wants, and confirm whatever He wants, for with Him is the Mother Book.
As regards to punishment of adultery, no need to say it in the Quran, as there is no change in comparison with previous Book of God (Torah).
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
I am opening this topic due to the insistence of a person to discuss this topic in an irrelevant one. Thus, this maybe a better place to discuss this.

Someone said.

Whether or not it is recorded in the Quran is irrelevant to the fact that Muhammad claimed to have received the revelation that adulterers should be stoned and he was so sure of the truthfulness of this idea that he performed the deed himself.

Yes - he did tell his followers not to record this particular revelation in the Quran - after the fact - but that looks more like an admission of guilt or cover up than anything else.

So - yes - it was never written in the Quran - but Muhammad taught it as revelation and acted on it - which is more historically relevant.


Thats what this someone said. So these are my questions.

1. What is the historical data that proves Muhammed claimed to have received the revelation that adulterers should be stoned, and he was so sure of the truthfulness of this idea that he performed the deed himself?

2. What is the historical data that proves he told his followers not to record this particular revelation?

3. Please provide evidence that this is historical. What is the analysis done?

It is indeed an interesting topic. So there. Its open.

Perhaps you can clear something up for me.

Since you seem to be clearly of the opinion that there is nothing islamic about stoning adulturers...

Why is it in your opinion that shariah courts in islamic societies do give this punishment?
Why is it so, in your opinion, that both muslims and non-muslims connect the practice of stoning to the religion of Islam?
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
evil-eye-wallpaper-1600x900.jpg


images
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
As far as the Quran goes, try to find FOUR male witnesses that personally saw penetration. And here, the Quran and Hadith are in conflict. Zina - Wikipedia

Zina belongs to the category of hudud offenses (sing.: hadd), which are offenses that are specifically mentioned in the Quran, also known as "claims of God" (huqūq Allāh). Several verses of the of the Quran prohibit zina, including 24:2 which says it should be punished with 100 lashes. However, on the basis of hadith, the penalty for an offender who is muhsan (adult, free, Muslim, and married at least once) is stoning to death (rajm). Zina must be proved by testimony of four male Muslim eyewitnesses to the actual act of penetration, or a confession repeated four times and not retracted later.[15][1] The offenders must have acted of their own free will.[1] Rapists could be prosecuted under different legal categories which used normal evidentiary rules.[16] Making an accusation of zina without presenting the required eyewitnesses is called qadhf (القذف), which is itself a hudud offense.[17]
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
New As far as the Quran goes, try to find FOUR male witnesses that personally saw penetration
That's not just adultary, that's like an orgie or at best voyeurism

See "act of penetration", means standing within a few feet/yards or have enormous sex organs or have eagle eyes at least
 

firedragon

Veteran Member

Dont you find it a bit strange that you quote the Bible when it comes to Christianity but a hadith when it comes to Islam?

Anyway, why dont you attempt to answer the OP?

Thats what this someone said. So these are my questions.

1. What is the historical data that proves Muhammed claimed to have received the revelation that adulterers should be stoned, and he was so sure of the truthfulness of this idea that he performed the deed himself?

2. What is the historical data that proves he told his followers not to record this particular revelation?

3. Please provide evidence that this is historical. What is the analysis done?
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
As far as the Quran goes, try to find FOUR male witnesses that personally saw penetration.

Can you give the verse that says "find FOUR male witnesses that personally saw penetration"?

1. Where does it say "Penetration"?
2. There are three instances in the same chapter, within a few verses. Which one are you referring to specifically?
3. And you should know that the Islamic theology is that the Quran is Muhaimeen, the Furqan, so if the hadith which is written 3 or 4 centuries later is in conflict, or if anything is in conflict with the Quran, the Quran takes the stance of the yard stick. Everything else is irrelevant.

Please give some answers objectively.
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
3. And you should know that the Islamic theology is that the Quran is Muhaimeen, the Furqan, so if the hadith which is written 3 or 4 centuries later is in conflict, or if anything is in conflict with the Quran, the Quran takes the stance of the yard stick. Everything else is irrelevant.
The Quran may be the yardstick for Quranist type theology, but it is not the yardstick for a historical approach in my opinion.
The reasons are as follows;
1. Muhammad may have followed the Jewish law on stoning until the revelation of the hundred lashes.
2. Muhammad may have contradicted Himself or acted hypocritically - the Quran does not give us a history of Muhammad, in fact it barely mentions Him.

Having said that I am of the opinion that we cannot know historically that Muhammad stoned adulterers at any point - in fact in my opinion we cannot say historically that He did not either. All we can really say with certainty in my opinion is that certain Muslims historically believed He did stone people for adultery, and date this I would assume from the time of the dating of the individual Hadith. Which would not say that they did not believe it earlier, just that we can't say with historical certainty that they did believe it earlier.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
Can you give the verse that says "find FOUR male witnesses that personally saw penetration"?

1. Where does it say "Penetration"?
2. There are three instances in the same chapter, within a few verses. Which one are you referring to specifically?
3. And you should know that the Islamic theology is that the Quran is Muhaimeen, the Furqan, so if the hadith which is written 3 or 4 centuries later is in conflict, or if anything is in conflict with the Quran, the Quran takes the stance of the yard stick. Everything else is irrelevant.

Please give some answers objectively.
The references in the article I cited can be consulted as to why 'penetration' is used in the article itself.

2. Which four - answer objectively.

3. That's your opinion.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
Dont you find it a bit strange that you quote the Bible when it comes to Christianity but a hadith when it comes to Islam?

Anyway, why dont you attempt to answer the OP?

Thats what this someone said. So these are my questions.

1. What is the historical data that proves Muhammed claimed to have received the revelation that adulterers should be stoned, and he was so sure of the truthfulness of this idea that he performed the deed himself?

2. What is the historical data that proves he told his followers not to record this particular revelation?

3. Please provide evidence that this is historical. What is the analysis done?

You should study the history of Hadith, which are considered strong and which are considered weak and the veracity of the ones who are cited.
 

Fallen Prophet

Well-Known Member
@Fallen Prophet

Im sure you would be able to provide some answers for this topic at hand. All yours.
Geez. I was not being "insistent" - I merely shared the motivation behind my initial comments. I thought that matter was closed. You did not have to make a whole new thread. Feels somewhat vindictive.

Honestly - nothing "proves" that Muhammad claimed anything.

It's similar to the teachings of Christ in the New Testament.

No historical data "proves" that what the records claimed they taught was actually what they taught.

Quranic Verse on Stoning Adulterers - Islamweb - Fatwas

24. The Quran chapter 24. Stoning to death for adultery is not in the Quran. - Islam and the Quran

Is the stoning verse missing from the Quran?
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
You should study the history of Hadith, which are considered strong and which are considered weak and the veracity of the ones who are cited.

Okay. Thanks for trying to teach me the history of ahadith.

Could you please give me the mathn and the isnad of the ahadith and why you think its either sahih, daif, mathrook or muthawathir?

Please go ahead.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
The references in the article I cited can be consulted as to why 'penetration' is used in the article itself.

2. Which four - answer objectively.

3. That's your opinion.

1. So the article says "penetration" and you say it as if its in the Qur'an?
2. Same chapter, same vicinity of the verse you had addressed already. This is an objective answer. Just read it rather than reading some website. Then you would easily know.
3. No, that's not "My Opinion". Lol. This is the orthodox theology of Islam. Maybe you are not aware.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
The Quran may be the yardstick for Quranist type theology,

Nope. Please dont make statements that you dont understand like that. The Quran is the yardstick according to any orthodox so called "Islamic Theologies". Any. This is the Akidah. This is the Milleth. Seriously I dont know what you are talking about mate.

but it is not the yardstick for a historical approach in my opinion.

Err. To prove something was in the Quran you have to use the Quran. To prove that something was in the tale of two cities you have to use the tale of two cities. If that is not a historical approach, then what is?

1. Muhammad may have followed the Jewish law on stoning until the revelation of the hundred lashes.
2. Muhammad may have contradicted Himself or acted hypocritically - the Quran does not give us a history of Muhammad, in fact it barely mentions Him.

Having said that I am of the opinion that we cannot know historically that Muhammad stoned adulterers at any point - in fact in my opinion we cannot say historically that He did not either. All we can really say with certainty in my opinion is that certain Muslims historically believed He did stone people for adultery, and date this I would assume from the time of the dating of the individual Hadith. Which would not say that they did not believe it earlier, just that we can't say with historical certainty that they did believe it earlier.

I shall leave all the may have's aside because they are kind of useless. I can say "you may be just making up lies because you just hate Islam and Muhammed and you may have an agenda". This is just rhetoric. ITs useless to say "May have " something, then something may have happened, and another "may have' may have occurred.

Cheers.
 
Top