This seems strange to me so I thought I'd ask for this sub's thoughts.
The Quran prescribes the punishment for Zina (sex outside of wedlock) to be 100 lashes (24:2). No distinction is made between married or unmarried offenders. This is confirmed in verse 4:25, where it states married slaves who commit Zina should receive half the punishment of their free counterparts. You can't stone someone half to death, so obviously this is referring to the lashing punishment.
Yet as we all know, Sunni Islam holds that the punishment for Zina if committed by one who is married, is stoning. This is based on Sahih Hadith saying Muhammad stoned people, and that stoning is the proper punishment for married Zina.
How can a contradiction between the Hadith and Quran be resolved by picking Hadith over the Quran? Weirdly, Sahih Hadith actually say there was originally a stoning verse in the Quran , but that it was "eaten by a goat" during Muhammad's time, which is why it isn't in the Uthmanic version we have today.
Does anyone find this strange? Only one physical copy of this verse existed and happened to be eaten by a goat? Nobody ever bothered to write it down again? The Quran was compiled not just with written verses, but the memories of people who memorized the Quran. So then why was this verse not included if it was apparently part of the "recited Quran" many people knew?
It honestly looks to me like the practice of stoning was a clear innovation in Islam after Muhammad's death, as the above story is completely incoherent. Am I missing something? Disclosure, yes, I'm an ex-Muslim, but I won't get thoughtful responses if I post this in "that" forum, a everyone will just say, "ya her dur Islam is illogical". I'm genuinely curious about this.
[link] [comments]
from Islam https://ift.tt/2Z9eFj2
Post A Comment:
0 comments so far,add yours