Getting stoned!!#$&*. Where does it come from?

[firedragon]

I don’t see why I personally need to analyse the hadith when there are experts who do that.

So your historical method is to blindly follow Muslims? Great.

That means you would value the prophet flying a winged horse as historical? Or now would you have a double standard? Since you never even analysed but blindly worshiped Muslims who validated ahadith.

I picked that hadith not because it was necessarily the most sahih hadith on stoning but rather because it demonstrates that Muhammad did not need to be a hypocrite in order to practice stoning even though it is against the Quran.

I said Sarih. Not Sahih.

That being said i’m sure that there are Muslim scholars who could quote to you hadith they consider sahih on stoning, just look at this website for example:
Hadith on Rajm: Verse of stoning not meant to be written in Quran | Daily Hadith Online الحديث اليومي

Good to know that you are with all the Muslim scholars in the world and you take their word for everything. Strange, but it's your prerogative.

 

[danieldemol]

So your historical method is to blindly follow Muslims? Great.

I think it is more correct to say that you blindly follow your scholars who say stoning definitely did not happen, and the other Muslims blindly follow their scholars who say it definitely did happen, whilst I have adopted neither approach and instead asserted that it is a possibility (not a certainty) that it did happen.

That means you would value the prophet flying a winged horse as historical? Or now would you have a double standard?

I make no claim to be an actual historian, so if I am wrong in this I stand to be corrected by @Augustus , but I think when studying any piece of hagiographic information such as hadith, Sira and other similar works, more weight is given to bits of information that are non-supernatural and non-flattering than tall claims. This follows the simple logic that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It’s not a double standard.

There is nothing extraordinary about the claim that a man who believed in Moses and that death by stoning was part of the law revealed to Moses May have practiced that law until His own alleged revelation abrogated that law.

Do I really need to go into why claims the Prophet flew a winged horse are extraordinary?

I said Sarih. Not Sahih.

I believe I have taken you to task before for using jargon not searchable on google without defining it.

Good to know that you are with all the Muslim scholars in the world and you take their word for everything. Strange, but it's your prerogative.

Looks to me like you are saying here that it is possible the majority of those who spent their lives studying the hadith sciences could be wrong.

But if the majority could be wrong then the minority could also be wrong and that tells me what a waste of time devoting one’s life to the study of hadith science is for the layman. It would be far more profitable for the layman to devote his life to basic compassion for sentient beings and the study of material science than the study of hadith.

The only condition under which I could see a layman such as myself devoting the serious time required for the study of hadith is if the Quran itself where a perfect book, and in my opinion, it is a deeply flawed book, not a perfect one. Then how could it be justified for me to spend serious time in study of the even more flawed hadith?

 

[Link]

It's a double standard. I agree with firedragon.

Something you have to realize not only about Islam but ALL religious studies.

 

[danieldemol]

It's a double standard...

Empty assertion, no explanation of how it is a double standard provided

 

[Link]

Empty assertion, no explanation of how it is a double standard provided

Firedragon explained it. I'm just agreeing.

 

[danieldemol]

Firedragon explained it. I'm just agreeing.

In that case you are ignoring the evidence that i’m not blindly imitating anyone as provided in post 42

 

[Link]

In that case you are ignoring the evidence that i’m not blindly imitating anyone as provided in post 42

I'm not ignoring anything.

 

[danieldemol]

@Link if the most hagiographic version of history is the most correct one we would have to revise history to suit the audience, for example to a compassionate crowd the most compassionate story would become the most accurate, for the dogmatic crowd the most miraculous story would become the most accurate, for the scientific crowd, all that would have to be ignored in favour of a different version of events.

What we should be doing is ignoring how the version of events makes us feel, and instead going with the most historically probable narrative.

 

[Link]

@Link if the most hagiographic version of history is the most correct one we would have to revise history to suit the audience, for example to a compassionate crowd the most compassionate story would become the most accurate, for the dogmatic crowd the most miraculous story would become the most accurate, for the scientific crowd, all that would have to be ignored in favour of a different version of events.

What we should be doing is ignoring how the version of events makes us feel, and instead going with the most historically probable narrative.

It depends on what you are searching, this thread was from the vantage point that Muslims accept Quran as true, so why the hell did they accept stoning. My answer I already stated.

Not only is your post off-topic really, but, it shows a double standard you have in approaching study of religion. But again, this is not what you look for in religions, you can believe Quran is forged for all I care, and approach hadiths with more weight, it doesn't matter.

The question, is why did Muslims do it. I think it's a good question. And in fact, till this day, it doesn't make sense without keeping in mind the sorcery and nature of insincerity to God it causes.

We aren't sincere to Quran, the sorcery merely deceives us that we respect it, when we disregard God behind our backs in favor of the Idol that has many idols.

jibt and Taghut go together. But your viewpoint is not an answer, if Mohammad (s) did practice this and we are certain he did, we should disbelieve in him because ultimately he contradicts the very book he claims is from God. But the more rational thing for Muslims to do would to investigate why and how did these hadiths become popular, and Quran itself has the answer, with a bunch of warnings of the past, and exactly why we are in our situation, if you pick up the various states we can go through as a nation.

And how the Quran was cursed to the degree people can't perceive such clear statements from it, is itself, a good topic. Your answer is really a non-answer and side tracking it.

 

[danieldemol]

I just read some of the Wikipedia articles on the historical Muhammad and it looks as though it is a non-issue anyway, since there is not enough material secular historians consider authentic to be able to verify one way or the other whether Muhammad stoned people.

 

[firedragon]

I think it is more correct to say that you blindly follow your scholars who say stoning definitely did not happen,

Welll, I didnt quote anyone, I didnt make any statement so thats just a lie. Maybe thats your way of doing things, but its useless to make up things and to hear made-up things so ciao.

 

[firedragon]

It depends on what you are searching, this thread was from the vantage point that Muslims accept Quran as true, so why the hell did they accept stoning. My answer I already stated.

Not only is your post off-topic really, but, it shows a double standard you have in approaching study of religion. But again, this is not what you look for in religions, you can believe Quran is forged for all I care, and approach hadiths with more weight, it doesn't matter.

The question, is why did Muslims do it. I think it's a good question. And in fact, till this day, it doesn't make sense without keeping in mind the sorcery and nature of insincerity to God it causes.

We aren't sincere to Quran, the sorcery merely deceives us that we respect it, when we disregard God behind our backs in favor of the Idol that has many idols.

jibt and Taghut go together. But your viewpoint is not an answer, if Mohammad (s) did practice this and we are certain he did, we should disbelieve in him because ultimately he contradicts the very book he claims is from God. But the more rational thing for Muslims to do would to investigate why and how did these hadiths become popular, and Quran itself has the answer, with a bunch of warnings of the past, and exactly why we are in our situation, if you pick up the various states we can go through as a nation.

And how the Quran was cursed to the degree people can't perceive such clear statements from it, is itself, a good topic. Your answer is really a non-answer and side tracking it.

Hey, you understood the question. Well, that's new in this thread, and I appreciate someone who could think fairly at least humble and open enough to understand "a question" even though we may have ideologies poles apart. Its strange to see people walking up with agenda which blinds them so badly they cannot understand a simple question and if understanding is so difficult, clarify.

 

[Piculet]

Stoning has become part of the sharia through the Sunnah, as the OP implies in itself.

 

[firedragon]

Stoning has become part of the sharia through the Sunnah, as the OP implies in itself.

Brother, the discussion is not on the Sunnah and what is the Sunnah. Read the OP again, I never said anything about the Sunnah.

Cheers.

 

[Piculet]

Brother, the discussion is not on the Sunnah and what is the Sunnah. Read the OP again, I never said anything about the Sunnah.

Cheers.

You asked where stoning comes from. Then you mentioned the hadiths and the fact that stoning is mentioned there. Then you implied one should wonder how stoning came to be part of the Islamic theology.

The Sunnah is part of Islamic theology. The obvious answer thus far is that stoning came into islamic theology from the Sunnah.

 

[firedragon]

You asked where stoning comes from. Then you mentioned the hadiths and the fact that stoning is mentioned there. Then you implied one should wonder how stoning came to be part of the Islamic theology.

The Sunnah is part of Islamic theology. The obvious answer thus far is that stoning came into islamic theology from the Sunnah.

Brother. Thanks. Peace.

 

[Link]

We wish to trick ourselves we worship God but hold to the Taghut by convenience. This is why we still see stoning as part of the Sharia or Sunnah.

 

[firedragon]

We wish to trick ourselves we worship God but hold to the Taghut by convenience. This is why we still see stoning as part of the Sharia or Sunnah.

Why did some one or a group of people enter Rajm into Islam while its not in the Qur'an? Whats the purpose? What could they gain from it? Is it just a 1000 year tradition they just couldnt let go so the sneaked it into Islam or did someone bring it as some kind of control mechanism? What do you think?

Its a waste of time trying to make the divide in what is the Sunnah with people who use these phrases like fleeting stone throws. The topic is very interesting and important if someone thought about it and tried to be objective.

 

[Link]

Why did some one or a group of people enter Rajm into Islam while its not in the Qur'an? Whats the purpose? What could they gain from it? Is it just a 1000 year tradition they just couldnt let go so the sneaked it into Islam or did someone bring it as some kind of control mechanism? What do you think?

Its a waste of time trying to make the divide in what is the Sunnah with people who use these phrases like fleeting stone throws. The topic is very interesting and important if someone thought about it and tried to be objective.

I have a lot to say about it. But from the start, there was a war on the Sunnah to the extent books were burned and hadiths were no longer allowed to be written. The hadiths in Sahih Muslim for example saying the Prophet (s) forbid writing hadiths are of course fabricated to justify this.

And the reason is quite simple, with the Sunnah the original Sunnah, it would be hard to curse the Quran with black magic, because it unties it.

And from the start there has been a war on separating the family from Quran, and the purpose is to make Islam look bad to the world by the time we become a global community.

It's the illuminati or the previous forms, or whatever form they were always in, that the Quran says "for a people who have yet to come to you".

Abu Lahab and his wife rule the world, the dragon lady in red and Gog (Abu Lahab) are not something that is one generation and gone, they always here, the Prophet's (s) uncle was just one instances of Gog, and he had enough Magog to wage war against Prophet (s).

These people are not gone, neither among any nation or people, nor is Saudi Arabia ruled by true believers.

 

[danieldemol]

...or did someone bring it as some kind of control mechanism?...

It’s interesting that you would consider stoning a control method but presumably not lashing.