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

[firedragon]

'And if he dies through this fall to the ground, the obligation to stone the transgressor is fulfilled.'

Yes. If he dies, but he is not meant to die from the fall.

 

[Rival]

Yes. If he dies, but he is not meant to die from the fall.

He is, otherwise they wouldn't be pushing him to begin with.

And if the condemned man does not die from his fall,[...]

 

[Thief]

If not, did someone just invent it?

If I may.....
learning to live on the ground
no longer climbing the trees for saftey

Man learned to grip stones and clubs

clubs for up close fighting

stones for distance

and Man would learn to use such things with impunity

 

[firedragon]

He is, otherwise they wouldn't be pushing him to begin with.

And if the condemned man does not die from his fall,

Alles gut. Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

If I may.....
learning to live on the ground
no longer climbing the trees for saftey

Man learned to grip stones and clubs

clubs for up close fighting

stones for distance

and Man would learn to use such things with impunity

I am speaking about the Quran and the post quranic time.

 

[Thief]

I am speaking about the Quran and the post quranic time.

I realize the tense of your post

but you did ask

did someone invent stoning?

yes

 

[firedragon]

I realize the tense of your post

but you did ask

did someone invent stoning?

yes

Apologies if I was not clear. I meant that within the context of the whole post.

 

[Deeje]

When did Muslims start using this? Its not in the Quran.

No idea. All I know is that Islam accepts Moses as a prophet and as the Mediator of the old covenant, Moses was the one who recorded God’s law. Stoning was part of that law.

 

[danieldemol]

Stoning to death as a punishment occurs in the Tanakh and is prescribed even for people who try to convert people away from YHWH, and then when a bride is not a virgin at the time of marriage, and maybe we could say "etc". Well, the Qur'an doesn't have any stoning or Rajm in it whatsoever.

Everyone knows that there are several ahadith that propagate Rajm or stoning like one where it says the part of the Qur'an that had this verse written was eaten by a goat during the prophet Muhammed's funeral days, and then there is another hadith where a man speaks to a monkey who tells him that they are stoning another monkey for adultery. Strangely, the miracle of a man speaking monkey language has not been made famous as one of the biggest miracles, said as a side note.

Nevertheless, does not the question arise that since the Qur'an which is supposed to be the Furqan or the criterion for Islamic theology does not mention stoning anywhere, how does one content that rajm entered the theology? Was it a Biblical tradition that somehow crept into Islam? If not, did someone just invent it? What is the reasoning behind the adoption of this practice? What do we know?

I think the fundamental assumption here is that Muhammad never did anything which contradicts what the Quran says.

One possibility is that Muhammad did it, but it was not recorded in the Quran.

 

[Link]

Gog and Magog fought Ahlulbayt (a), killed the Prophet (s), prevented him from writing his will, burned the hadiths, gathered Quran's with commentary and burn those too, and forbid people to write hadiths to the extent you still find hadiths in Sahih Muslim claiming Rasool (s) forbid anyone to write anything of his words other than Quran.

All this to open a way to put a curse on Quran, and make people blind to it. May God bless the companions of Mohammad (s) who watched a people who fought them their whole lives now rally over sorcerers and did their best to spread the Ghadeer message, and revive the Sunnah and show the truth of the Quran.... The minority who fought the disbelievers and polytheists were now surrounded by a majority who all had heroes or blood relatives most likely been killed by Imam Ali (a) by God's power and miracle power through him.

It's no wonder Quran is so clear on the two conditions that allow death, and no neither stoning for adultery nor killing apostates is one of them yet people ignore it today, the sorcery strong, Taghut and Jibt go together, and this why we have to expose the killers of Hussain (a) of our time, because it as Quran says "listeners to a lie devourers of what is false, listeners for a people who have yet to come to you", this means people at that time, magog, were preparing for a world order and for a people to over take Muslims even during the time of the Prophet (s).

May God curse the Jibt and Taghut and their Satanic devils and their sorcerers and followers.

 

[firedragon]

I think the fundamental assumption here is that Muhammad never did anything which contradicts what the Quran says.

One possibility is that Muhammad did it, but it was not recorded in the Quran.

Okay. So how many possibilities are you taking into account? All or just the one's you like?

Also, is it a need that you have to bring in Muhammed and that he "Possibly" did something or not when the topic is addressing the Quran and where Rajm came from? Possibilities are just your wish that you wish to impose since maybe you have a need to, and many would cook up many possibilities. Its an invalid statement to make and as you always try to go "historical" and not theological now you have made a non-historical statement of possibility while to be historical you have to have historical shreds of evidence and discuss probabilities with good, dated evidence. Not "its possible that Muhammed was a hypocrite" which is just your need you are portraying.

Kind of pathetic.

 

[danieldemol]

Okay. So how many possibilities are you taking into account? All or just the one's you like?...

You are projecting here, I did not deny that there are other possibilities.

Also, is it a need that you have to bring in Muhammed and that he "Possibly" did something or not when the topic is addressing the Quran and where Rajm came from?

If Rajm came from Muhammad then the topic is being addressed directly.

Possibilities are just your wish that you wish to impose since maybe you have a need to, and many would cook up many possibilities. Its an invalid statement to make and as you always try to go "historical" and not theological now you have made a non-historical statement of possibility while to be historical you have to have historical shreds of evidence and discuss probabilities with good, dated evidence. Not "its possible that Muhammed was a hypocrite" which is just your need you are portraying.

Kind of pathetic.

First of all I did not say that Muhammad was necessarily a hypocrite, it may have been His practice to follow what He considered to be the Jewish shariah until abrogative verses where (allegedly) revealed. Consider the hadith;
Narrated Ash Shaibani:

I asked `Abdullah bin Abi `Aufa, 'Did Allah's Messenger (SAWS) carry out the Rajam penalty ( i.e., stoning to death)?' He said, "Yes." I said, "Before the revelation of Surat-an-Nur or after it?" He replied, "I don't Know."

Bukhari Book 86 hadith 43.

So for example the possibility is there that Muhammad was just doing practices similar to other Abrahamics until the alleged revelation of abrogative verses, which would not be hypocritical .

As far as the possible historical evidence goes, I think you know of the numerous hadith relating that Muhammad did stoning, as well as stories that various prominent early Muslims considered it part of the Shariah. Can you find any historically credible hadith in which Muhammad rejects stoning as being practiced historically?

Why would I "need" Muhammad to be a hypocrite? Islam would either stand or fail on it's own merits. If a drunk said alcohol is bad his hypocrisy does not mean alchohol is good. Likewise if a cocain junky says cocain is good the abscence of hypocrisy does not make cocain good. The same is true of Islam, it stands or fails on its own merits not on whether it's founder was a hypocrite.

In any case I think you are projecting, it is part of your religion that Muhammad is unquestionably good, thus you have the "need" to cling to that otherwise your worldview falls apart. By comparison liberals are free to view Muhammad as being saintly or hypocritical, as it's not a pre-packaged belief system it will not crumble if one aspect of it is challenged.

 

[firedragon]

Narrated Ash Shaibani:

I asked `Abdullah bin Abi `Aufa, 'Did Allah's Messenger (SAWS) carry out the Rajam penalty ( i.e., stoning to death)?' He said, "Yes." I said, "Before the revelation of Surat-an-Nur or after it?" He replied, "I don't Know."

Lets be specific.

How do you validate this hadith as a valid historical event? It seems like you have pretty good confidence right? So can you show me how sarih this hadith is? What are the thadhlees levels you have analysed? In fact, what are your analyses if any?

Lets hear it.

 

[firedragon]

You are projecting here, I did not deny that there are other possibilities.


If Rajm came from Muhammad then the topic is being addressed directly.


First of all I did not say that Muhammad was necessarily a hypocrite, it may have been His practice to follow what He considered to be the Jewish shariah until abrogative verses where (allegedly) revealed. Consider the hadith;
Narrated Ash Shaibani:

I asked `Abdullah bin Abi `Aufa, 'Did Allah's Messenger (SAWS) carry out the Rajam penalty ( i.e., stoning to death)?' He said, "Yes." I said, "Before the revelation of Surat-an-Nur or after it?" He replied, "I don't Know."

Bukhari Book 86 hadith 43.

So for example the possibility is there that Muhammad was just doing practices similar to other Abrahamics until the alleged revelation of abrogative verses, which would not be hypocritical .

As far as the possible historical evidence goes, I think you know of the numerous hadith relating that Muhammad did stoning, as well as stories that various prominent early Muslims considered it part of the Shariah. Can you find any historically credible hadith in which Muhammad rejects stoning as being practiced historically?

Why would I "need" Muhammad to be a hypocrite? Islam would either stand or fail on it's own merits. If a drunk said alcohol is bad his hypocrisy does not mean alchohol is good. Likewise if a cocain junky says cocain is good the abscence of hypocrisy does not make cocain good. The same is true of Islam, it stands or fails on its own merits not on whether it's founder was a hypocrite.

In any case I think you are projecting, it is part of your religion that Muhammad is unquestionably good, thus you have the "need" to cling to that otherwise your worldview falls apart. By comparison liberals are free to view Muhammad as being saintly or hypocritical, as it's not a pre-packaged belief system it will not crumble if one aspect of it is challenged.

You are trying your best to turn this thread into something that will fulfill one of your needs. Why? You should ask yourself.

But lets see how you verify these things.

You said "Its possible that Muhammed practiced Rajm". YOu said it.

So now please provide your validations.

ONe case. Lets be specific.

How do you validate this hadith as a valid historical event? It seems like you have pretty good confidence right? So can you show me how sarih this hadith is? What are the thadhlees levels you have analysed? In fact, what are your analyses if any?

Lets hear it.

 

[firedragon]

it is part of your religion that Muhammad is unquestionably good, thus you have the "need" to cling to that otherwise your worldview falls apart.

So you saying others are projecting arent you?

It was you who said "Muhammed possibly stoned people to death". That was you projecting your need onto something that was not going into that kind of possibility. Its actually pathetic to project possibilities in a discusison looking for historical insight. Maybe you think everyone is just like you with a need to either divinise or demonise Muhammed. Thats irrelevant to the topic but you had to bring it here becuase it is your need to do so, not other's.

By comparison liberals are free to view Muhammad as being saintly or hypocritical,

Nope. You have shown your already packaged idea by not being liberal though you love to think you are. Needy I must say mate.

Stick to the topic, provide historical evidence, objective insights, not project your love to hate by finding a way in every topic. Its quite pathetic and needy. Also, it derails the thread with a lot of jargon and back and forth discussions unneeded.

Now provide your evidence, and try your best to be objective and truthful and if you dont know something try to candidly say so.

 

[danieldemol]

You are trying your best to turn this thread into something that will fulfill one of your needs. Why? You should ask yourself.

But lets see how you verify these things.

You said "Its possible that Muhammed practiced Rajm". YOu said it.

So now please provide your validations.

ONe case. Lets be specific.

How do you validate this hadith as a valid historical event? It seems like you have pretty good confidence right? So can you show me how sarih this hadith is? What are the thadhlees levels you have analysed? In fact, what are your analyses if any?

Lets hear it.

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

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.

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

 

[danieldemol]

Maybe you think everyone is just like you with a need to either divinise or demonise Muhammed.

Nope, as I explained earlier Muhammad could have been a saint, a sinner, or anything in between, all of that is allowed within the bounds of liberalism which has no orthodoxy unlike Islam.

 

[danieldemol]

not project your love to hate

I have not expressed hatred for anyone. You are being dishonest, hypocritical, projecting and off topic all in one go - well played

 

[firedragon]

I have not expressed hatred for anyone. You are being dishonest, hypocritical, projecting and off topic all in one go - well played

You maybe eternally thinking others are just like you. Good for you mate.

 

[firedragon]

Nope, as I explained earlier Muhammad could have been a saint, a sinner, or anything in between, all of that is allowed within the bounds of liberalism which has no orthodoxy unlike Islam.

Well, thats a great advancement in your case. And all of this is completely irrelevant to this thread.