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

[Fallen Prophet]

I’m happy to try and understand your point of view as learning comes from sharing views so please feel very welcome to share your views and hopefully we can learn from each other.

I have nothing against Muhammad or Islam. There is nothing technically wrong with him directing his follower to stone those guilty of adultery. It was a different time. I don't judge him negatively if he did that.

I only commented on this and the other thread because I see evidence that suggests that he did do this thing - despite the denials of the OP.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Alright.So I must apologise I didnt see this post.

You have not quoted a single source that says "the prophet told his disciples not to write it in the Quran".

Also, you have not given any reason why you believe these sources. It seems like you have not read the OP.

Let me cut and paste for you.

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?

One of the sources I provided did in fact claim that Muhammad told his followers not to write it when they asked him if they should.

I have provided the quotes from the companions of Muhammad which agree with what I have claimed. Please read them.

You do not have to believe or agree with it - but I have done my due diligence and see no reason to do more.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I have nothing against Muhammad or Islam. There is nothing technically wrong with him directing his follower to stone those guilty of adultery. It was a different time. I don't judge him negatively if he did that.

I only commented on this and the other thread because I see evidence that suggests that he did do this thing - despite the denials of the OP.

I’m a Bahá’í not a Muslim but on my research and investigation the Quran prescribes 100 lashes for adultery. The Quran was revealed over a 23 year period so until it was fully compiled people at that time might have followed other laws.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

I’m a Bahá’í not a Muslim but on my research and investigation the Quran prescribes 100 lashes for adultery. The Quran was revealed over a 23 year period so until it was fully compiled people at that time might have followed other laws.

Yes. Which is my point. There are records that they did follow other laws. That's all I'm saying. And there is nothing wrong with that.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Yes. Which is my point. There are records that they did follow other laws. That's all I'm saying. And there is nothing wrong with that.

I agree that until the new laws applied stoning could definitely have occurred.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I agree that until the new laws applied stoning could definitely have occurred.

Yes, before Muhammad revealed the verses regarding 100 lashes, what Law He would have followed, if not the Law of Torah?

Forbidding wine, is another example of a gradual change. In the beginning of Islam, Muhammad allowed drinking wine except while praying. Later He had forbidden it completely.

 

[firedragon]

One of the sources I provided did in fact claim that Muhammad told his followers not to write it when they asked him if they should.

I have provided the quotes from the companions of Muhammad which agree with what I have claimed. Please read them.

You do not have to believe or agree with it - but I have done my due diligence and see no reason to do more.

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?

Giving an internet link for any kind of apologetics is pathetic. Give direct sources and provide evidence to why you trust those sources. What you think are your sources are not direct sources.

So go ahead, do your research, and provide sources, and provide the evidence to why you trust those sources.

Try.

 

[danieldemol]

Ah. See, you responded to a post addressing a Christian belief. So maybe that is not relevant to you. So, whats your issue now?

Alright. So since you want to make a comparison between the Bible and Ahadith, no problem. Lets take it if you wish for the sake of your argument in this thread. What is the Mathn and Isnad that makes the Bible Sarih like you would approach the ahadith?

I said they were comparable in *some* ways, they need not be identical in every respect to be comparable in some ways

 

[firedragon]

I said they were comparable in *some* ways, they need not be identical in every respect to be comparable in some ways

So now you wish to make another argument that "the Bible and ahadith are comparable in some ways".

Ill tell you what. This is I think good enough for another topic.

 

[danieldemol]

Well, address the topic of the thread Daniel.

I have addressed the text of the quoted OP which did not saything about these words being part of the Quran.

Nope. This is not about possibilities. You keep talking about historical approach as if that is your most prominent approach, then you speak of possibilities and "may have's". Thats not a historical approach. A historical approach is to get to "probabilities".

Please try and stay consistent.

The goal of the historical approach as i understand it, is to weigh relevant possibilities against the historical evidence to come up with probabilities that such a thing did or did not occur.

The trouble with Muhammad is that outside of a few bare facts such as that He existed, we don't have *historical* evidence to weigh those possibilities against to come up with probabilities.


Therefore we simply cannot in my opinion rule in or out possibilities and then window dress a theological approach as being a historical approach when it is not.

If you want to say theologically that is not part of Islam your opinion would possibly go unchallenged except by other Muslims who disagree.

But to say Muhammad probably did not say such and such a thing from a historical perspective you would need evidence you dont have to dismiss the possibility that the Hadith raise.

 

[danieldemol]

So now you wish to make another argument that "the Bible and ahadith are comparable in some ways".

Ill tell you what. This is I think good enough for another topic.

Its not 'another' argument, the words are right there in the quote you originally responded to.

 

[danieldemol]

I quote you @Fallen Prophet who claimed that. But he also claims that Muhammed told others to not write that in the Quran after he himself did it.

Of course I am still awaiting his sources and his reasoning, but I can show you one person who made this claim.

In my opinion you have misunderstood the quote in the OP, which specifically says it was *not* recorded in the Quran.

You seem to have the word 'revelation' mixed up with 'Quranic revelation'.

What the OP quote seems to be saying is that it was revealed externally to the Quran.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

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?

Giving an internet link for any kind of apologetics is pathetic. Give direct sources and provide evidence to why you trust those sources. What you think are your sources are not direct sources.

So go ahead, do your research, and provide sources, and provide the evidence to why you trust those sources.

Try.

No. I'm content with what I have shared and the links I provided cite the sources of the quotes.

That amount of effort would exceed the amount of interest I have in this subject.

Besides - based on your reaction - I don't think you would accept anything I'd share anyways.

Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

No. I'm content with what I have shared and the links I provided cite the sources of the quotes.

That amount of effort would exceed the amount of interest I have in this subject.

Besides - based on your reaction - I don't think you would accept anything I'd share anyways.

Cheers.

Your sources dont support your claim. So if you are content, that's your prerogative, just that it is absolutely third party and you have not provided any reason to why you trust it.

So it seems like your whole point was not true, that there is no indication that Muhammed told others not to write something in any of the primary sources, and all you had was some links who speak of post hoc ergo propter hoc information which you cannot substantiate by yourself.

Hope you understand.

Anyway, just to make an explanation, you would have realise that you did not pose any primary sources. The only primary source you will be able to quote about a verse that was sent down and not included in the Quran is the verse about a goat eating that verse that was written down and kept by where he sleeps. This apparently happened during his funeral.

1. Goats dont eat their own skin. Those days, they didnt have paper in the early 7th century. They used velum. So think a bit, not blindly repeat what others say.
2. This story is not Sarih because the mathn is invalid.
3. Historically this is a story narrated by Farabri about 3 centuries after Muhammed and written down even after that. Thus, how do you validate it? Whats your methodology? Is it blind faith or is there a methodology at all?
4. This hadith is a story that "supposedly" happened after Muhammed died. Thus, it is false to say "Muhammed got revelation, and then he told his scribes to not write it". That is a made up sentence you made. Thats why you can never provide a source that says that. Because it is made up. Maybe someone else made that up.

Use your intellect. Dont repeat what people say.

Cheers.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Your sources dont support your claim. So if you are content, that's your prerogative, just that it is absolutely third party and you have not provided any reason to why you trust it.

So it seems like your whole point was not true, that there is no indication that Muhammed told others not to write something in any of the primary sources, and all you had was some links who speak of post hoc ergo propter hoc information which you cannot substantiate by yourself.

Hope you understand.

Anyway, just to make an explanation, you would have realise that you did not pose any primary sources. The only primary source you will be able to quote about a verse that was sent down and not included in the Quran is the verse about a goat eating that verse that was written down and kept by where he sleeps. This apparently happened during his funeral.

1. Goats dont eat their own skin. Those days, they didnt have paper in the early 7th century. They used velum. So think a bit, not blindly repeat what others say.
2. This story is not Sarih because the mathn is invalid.
3. Historically this is a story narrated by Farabri about 3 centuries after Muhammed and written down even after that. Thus, how do you validate it? Whats your methodology? Is it blind faith or is there a methodology at all?
4. This hadith is a story that "supposedly" happened after Muhammed died. Thus, it is false to say "Muhammed got revelation, and then he told his scribes to not write it". That is a made up sentence you made. Thats why you can never provide a source that says that. Because it is made up. Maybe someone else made that up.

Use your intellect. Dont repeat what people say.

Cheers.

I find this kinda funny. Someone who claims that the Quran is the Word of God simply because it claims to be such is telling me I should use my intellect and not just repeat what I hear?

I never claimed that I believed anything about Muhammad or the Quran. I only pointed out that there are records claiming that Muhammad claimed revelation about adultery, stoned those found guilty of itand then told his followers not to record the revelation.

I was trying to answer the OP for why people might believe the Quran contained that revelation.

The fact that you were so vindictive by making a separate thread and succumbing to vitriol even though I was making no claims about the Quran or Muhammad - just about the existence of records and why some people would believe as they do - shows your "blind faith" and inability to process it.

 

[firedragon]

I find this kinda funny. Someone who claims that the Quran is the Word of God simply because it claims to be such is telling me I should use my intellect and not just repeat what I hear?

Nope. This topic is not about the Quran being the word of God. So see, when you cannot substantiate your claim with some validity, resorting to this type of trick is pathetic.

So since that's your approach, that's the end of conversation.

One cannot provide proper evidence for made up statements. That is a fact.

Have a great day.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Nope. This topic is not about the Quran being the word of God. So see, when you cannot substantiate your claim with some validity, resorting to this type of trick is pathetic.

So since that's your approach, that's the end of conversation.

One cannot provide proper evidence for made up statements. That is a fact.

Have a great day.

I said multiple times that I was not trying to make any claim about Muhammad or Islam.

I was just providing reasons for why someone might believe the Quran contains verse about the stoning of adulterers.

You should learn to read before throwing out personal attacks.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Nope. This topic is not about the Quran being the word of God. So see, when you cannot substantiate your claim with some validity, resorting to this type of trick is pathetic.

So since that's your approach, that's the end of conversation.

One cannot provide proper evidence for made up statements. That is a fact.

Have a great day.

I just realized that I'm not done - because the main issue was never addressed.

The original post that caused this fiasco was not a question about the Quran or Muhammad - but about people.

The question was, "Why do people say Quran teaches stoning to death when it doesn't?" (Bold and italics added)

This is what caused me to share potential reasons for why people say that.

There are records out there that claim that Muhammad "revealed" that adulterers should be stoned, that he stoned people himself and that he then told his followers not to record that revelation.

My sharing reasons for why people might say the Quran teaches stoning for adultery was not a claim that any of these records were accurate or that the Quran was inaccurate.

I claimed multiple times that I was not trying to make any claims about the Quran or Muhammad - for or against.

You assumed that I was trying to make claims about the Quran and Muhammad - because you are fueled by bias and blind faith - which is why you lobbed personal attacks at me.

Now I am done.