Why do people say Quran teaches stoning to death when it doesn't?

[firedragon]

This is one topic that has been hacked to death. But the same people who have been engaged in a conversation that cleared that the Quran does not speak of stoning to death for things like adultery, again state the same thing as if they never discussed this topic prior.

Why would you think that is?

Just to make sure you understand the question.

1. Some time ago, person A discusses a topic "Quran does not have stoning to death for adultery".
2. Currently the same person "A" claims "Quran has stoning to death or adultery".

Why does this happen? Any ideas?

 

[Sirona]

Maybe they are too ignorant or too lazy to differenciate between Quran and hadith - not that I have much to contribute to Islamic law.

As I understood the omniscient Wikipedia, stoning as a punishment for adultery is practiced in Islamic countries, so in case somebody tried to argue that stoning as a punishment for adultery is not practiced in Islamic countries because it is not in the Quran would sound like a huge omission and a silly argument to me.

 

[Heyo]

This is one topic that has been hacked to death. But the same people who have been engaged in a conversation that cleared that the Quran does not speak of stoning to death for things like adultery, again state the same thing as if they never discussed this topic prior.

Why would you think that is?

Just to make sure you understand the question.

1. Some time ago, person A discusses a topic "Quran does not have stoning to death for adultery".
2. Currently the same person "A" claims "Quran has stoning to death or adultery".

Why does this happen? Any ideas?

Bad memory. It takes several iterations to overwrite an existing memory. Habits die hard. Did you ever write a date in January and get the year wrong? That's the same mechanism.

 

[sun rise]

People change their minds.

 

[firedragon]

Maybe they are too ignorant or too lazy to differenciate between Quran and hadith - not that I have much to contribute to Islamic law.

As I understood the omniscient Wikipedia, stoning as a punishment for adultery is practiced in Islamic countries, so in case somebody tried to argue that stoning as a punishment for adultery is not practiced in Islamic countries because it is not in the Quran would sound like a huge omission and a silly argument to me.

The thing is, I am referring to people who have already engaged in the same question and are very well aware that the Quran does not contain stoning to death for adultery. Today, they are repeating it as if they are unaware. But they say it very confidently.

Do you understand?

 

[Quintessence]

For the same reason folks still spout ideas like there being "left brained" and "right brained" functions - once something is a story told in popular culture rarely is it relented, even if it is factually incorrect.

 

[firedragon]

Bad memory. It takes several iterations to overwrite an existing memory. Habits die hard. Did you ever write a date in January and get the year wrong? That's the same mechanism.

Thanks. It could be. But I find it hard to believe. I think there has to be a different reason. Someone in this thread will give a fantastic idea to ponder over and research. It could be you. I shall await.

The reason is this. I have seen this all the time. But today it triggered again because one person repeated this, but I know for sure there is not enough time to forget the previous conversation because it was too recent. Not only too recent, it was too extensive of a discussion as well.

 

[firedragon]

For the same reason folks still spout ideas like there being "left brained" and "right brained" functions - once something is a story told in popular culture rarely is it relented, even if it is factually incorrect.

See. Its not the same. You are talking about a scientific development.

This is just pure text written in paper, and discussed very recently. It is not gonna change.

 

[Heyo]

Thanks. It could be. But I find it hard to believe.

I know what you mean. I had that problem with YEC. I explained how and why they misrepresented a scientific theory only for them to use the exact same misrepresentation in an other discussion with different people two days later.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Why does this happen? Any ideas?

Maybe its a crazy person. Depends on who it is and where they have posted it and inside of what sort of conversation.

 

[firedragon]

I know what you mean. I had that problem with YEC. I explained how and why they misrepresented a scientific theory only for them to use the exact same misrepresentation in an other discussion with different people two days later.

Oh I see. That would have been interesting to see!

 

[Quintessence]

See. Its not the same. You are talking about a scientific development.

This is just pure text written in paper, and discussed very recently. It is not gonna change.

While I gave an example from social sciences, the same principle applies to literature. Quotations get misattributed or taken out of context, for example. But if it is widely circulated, the story is believed anyway even if a particular quote is nowhere within the literary work that it is said to be in.

Stories tend to be particularly resilient of the people who tell them enjoy what they have to say. If it is culturally expected or acceptable to hate on a particular group, for example, they will continue to believe negative stories about them regardless of counter examples or even if those negative stories are total fabrications. That is the power of story - they hold great power over peoples and cultures. Changing stories usually takes at least a generation - the time it takes for stories to be failed to be passed on to new storytellers (aka, children).

 

[Rival]

Maybe since this?

'Abdullah b. 'Abbas reported that 'Umar b. Khattab sat on the pulpit of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: Verily Allah sent Muhammad (may peace be upon him) with truth and He sent down the Book upon him, and the verse of stoning was included in what was sent down to him. We recited it, retained it in our memory and understood it. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) awarded the punishment of stoning to death (to the married adulterer and adulteress) and, after him, we also awarded the punishment of stoning, I am afraid that with the lapse of time, the people (may forget it) and may say: We do not find the punishment of stoning in the Book of Allah, and thus go astray by abandoning this duty prescribed by Allah. Stoning is a duty laid down in Allah's Book for married men and women who commit adultery when proof is established, or it there is pregnancy, or a confession.

From Sahih Bukhari.

This hadith is odd though and I don't fully understand what it's trying to say, because it says it was sent as an ayah from Allah and then it's no longer found in the book.

 

[stvdv]

This is one topic that has been hacked to death. But the same people who have been engaged in a conversation that cleared that the Quran does not speak of stoning to death for things like adultery, again state the same thing as if they never discussed this topic prior.

Why would you think that is? Just to make sure you understand the question.
1. Some time ago, person A discusses a topic "Quran does not have stoning to death for adultery".
2. Currently the same person "A" claims "Quran has stoning to death or adultery".
Why does this happen? Any ideas?

Why this might happen:
1) IF someone has been brainwashed "stoning is the punishment" THEN he might need a few extra new confirmations to undo the faulty brainwash

2) IF someone found out others told him a lie, he might have developed trust issues, and can't accept the new facts easily

3) IF the person said himself "I have studied the Koran, and I discovered they lied to me previously" then he might accept it easier

4) Another thing is "bookish knowledge" vs "one's own personal experience, and feeling convinced of the new info"

5) Non Muslims won't easily accept Koran verses to be error free. So, reading a verse won't convince them easily. They need to double/triple check

Note: I don't know if you showed the verses, or if the person said it himself. When others explained it, then fall back in old habits is understandable

 

[loverofhumanity]

This is one topic that has been hacked to death. But the same people who have been engaged in a conversation that cleared that the Quran does not speak of stoning to death for things like adultery, again state the same thing as if they never discussed this topic prior.

Why would you think that is?

Just to make sure you understand the question.

1. Some time ago, person A discusses a topic "Quran does not have stoning to death for adultery".
2. Currently the same person "A" claims "Quran has stoning to death or adultery".

Why does this happen? Any ideas?

Ignorance and lack of proper research would be the main reason I assume as it is a law of the Bible not the Quran if one takes the time to look it up.

Leviticus 20:10 (OT)

10k‘The man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, he who commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress, shall surely be put to death.

 

[stvdv]

10k‘The man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, he who commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress, shall surely be put to death.

Probably that was a big problem in those days, although nowadays if this rule was applied many would die too. Especially if a thought counts too

 

[stvdv]

10k‘The man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, he who commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress, shall surely be put to death.

Religious Forums

10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

I was wondering, why mentioning it twice with the word "even" in between. I would say "his neighbour's wife" fall under "another man's wife"

Or would the first part mean "that even if you are unaware that the woman is married (another man's wife)". When it's a neighbor then there can't be an excuse that you did not know she was married.

 

[stvdv]

10k‘The man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, he who commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress, shall surely be put to death.

I think the spiritual meaning here is "if you commit adultery, you 'die spiritually', hence you are put to death". Maybe it was never meant to kill them. But people who were not spiritual, took it the wrong way (worldly). I can't imagine that God tells us to physically kill a human being over adultery.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Probably that was a big problem in those days, although nowadays if this rule was applied many would die too. Especially if a thought counts too

Would the human race survive is the question! Lol

 

[loverofhumanity]

I think the spiritual meaning here is "if you commit adultery, you 'die spiritually', hence you are put to death". Maybe it was never meant to kill them. But people who were not spiritual, took it the wrong way (worldly). I can't imagine that God tells us to physically kill a human being over adultery.

Hi stvdv. I found a quote which explains the reasons why harsh laws were required in the desert in the times of Moses but not in the present day.


Moses dwelt in the desert. As there were no penitentiaries, no means of restitution in the desert and wilderness, the laws of God were an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Could this be carried out now? If a man destroys another man's eye, are you willing to destroy the eye of the offender? If a man's teeth are broken or his ear cut off, will you demand a corresponding mutilation of his assailant? This would not be conformable to conditions of humanity at the present time. If a man steals, shall his hand be cut off? This punishment was just and right in the law of Moses, but it was applicable to the desert, where there were no prisons and reformatory institutions of later and higher forms of government. Today you have government and organization, a police system, a judge and trial by jury. The punishment and penalty is now different. Therefore, the non-essentials which deal with details of community are changed according to the exigency of the time and conditions."

(Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 168)