I am asking this question because I've seen a couple of times where hadith have been used to supercede the Quran in arguements.

So, here is the question?  In Sharia, which law is supreme, the one in the Quran?  Or the one in the hadith?

The Quran is said to be perfect.  Hadith are used to clarify.  But what if they come into conflict. 

Example for sake of clarification. 

Fornication/Adultery. 

Punishment from the Quran:  80 lashes.

Punishment from Hadith: Stoning.

Which is the higher law? 

If God dictates very specific punishments, how can anything else be used?  I have seen hadith (unverified and verified) used to argue points that were in contrary to the wording of the Quran.  Some local sharia courts using weak hadith that support cultural belief over the very clear wording of the Quran.

I've seen alot of discussion on scholars, hadiths and fiqh.  But, in the end, how do you assign authority? 

The Qur'an is a book of Guidance.  Had every law been mentioned in detail it would have taken volumes.  In such a case it's memorization and preservation would have been difficult.  Allah (s.w.t) sent us a Prophet.  The answer to your question lies in the relationship between the Qur'an and sunnah of the Prophet (s.a.w) that we have in his ahadith.  I think your question is on the sunnahs 5th role, but I mentioned 1-4 just FYI.

1- the sunnah reiterates the injuctions of the Quran.  This one is obvious.  For example, the Qur'an tells us to establish daily prayers, and the Prophet (s.a.w) also ordered us to do the same.

2- The explanatory sunnah elaborates the concise injuctions of the Qur'an.  This is also obvious.  How to pray is not mentioned in the Qur'an, we find this only in the sunnah.

3-  The sunnah also specifies some general statement in the Quran.  For example, the Qur'an prohibits us from eating dead meat (this is a general statement).  The sunnah specifies this statement, saying we are allowed to eat the dead meat of the sea.

4-  The sunnah qualifies the unqualified in the Qur'an.  For example in the case of theft.  The Qur'an states the thief's hand should be cut off.  But obviously we don't cut off a persons hand because he stole a loaf of bread.  From the sunnah we know the amount that desereves this punishment.

5- The sunnah as an independent source of legislation.  There are different opinions among the scholars on this one.   I agree with those who put it as an independent source because examples can be found in the Qur'an.  The Prophet only commanded us in things by the command of Allah; this part of the sunnah is unrecited revelation.  Here goes a few examples:

a- (2:144)  Allah Says: "...and We appointed the Qibla to which thou wast used, only to test those who followed the Messenger from those who would turn on their heels (From the Faith)."

The first qibla for the Muslims was bayt al-maqdas then the ayah was revealed (i think 17 months later) telling the Muslim to turn thier faces to masjid al-haram.  Now in the above ayah, Allah ascribes the appointment of the first Qiblia to Himself.  However, there is NO AYAH IN THE QUR'AN that orders the muslims to face bait al-maqdas.  This order was recieved by the Prophet from Allah, and he ordered the Muslims to face bayt al-maqdas.  From this example you can see the legislative power of the sunnah (which is due to the fact that it is part of revelation).

2- (2:239) Allah says: " If ye fear (an enemy), pray on foot, or riding, (as may be most convenient), but when ye are in security, celebrate Allah's praises in the manner He has taught you, which ye knew not (before). "

This ayah is referring to salat (in time of war then peace).  This ayah states that Allah has taught us how to pray (the normal way).  There is no ayah in the Qur'an that specifies the procedure.  This is found only in sunnah, yet still Allah attributes it to Himself.  Again you can see the legislative power of the sunnah as a result of its divine source.

Bottom line, I see it as a source of law because of its soruce.  Allah has already told us the Prophet (s.a.w) doesn't speak of his own desires (wa ma yantiqu an al-hawa), I believe this.  Keep in mind though, not all ahadith are authentic and as such do not represent the Prophet's (a.s.w) sunnah. 

You won't find a contradiction between an authentic hadith and the Qur'an.  Some people may confuse the 3rd role of the sunnah as contradicting the Qur'an, but in reality there is no contradiction.  Hope this answers your question.  If you want a "deeper" answer you could try sending your question in to the QA of Islamicity or another islamic site.

Salaam

Well, Abeer, I'm more looking at the direct contradictions.  Like my example.  In a Hadith, the Prophet (pbuh) was brought two Jews who had commited adultery.  He judged them according to their own book.  In the Torah, the punishment is Stoning.  Thus, the Prophet (pbuh) punished adulterers with stoning.  However, the Quran is very specific in this case.

My question is, if the Quran is very specific about something and a hadith changes that drastically, which is the Law?

I remember being told by another Muslim that the Prophet (pbuh) forbid the Hadith from being recorded because he was afraid that it would get mixed in with the Quran.  So, if this was his fear, I can understand it. 

I watched a show the other night where a girl (16) was hung in Iran for fornication.  There were claims that she was actually being sexually abused by the much older man.  He received 100 lashes, but she was hung.  There are cases in the middle east where stoning is the preferred punishment.  Rami even argued with me once that it was a mercy to stone them because they received their punishment in this life and wouldn't be punished again in the next.

I have been seeing some minor arguments amoung all of you about the Hadith versus the Quran.  I guess that's why I'm trying to understand the times where the Quran is very specific, yet it almost seems like the Hadith are given more weight?

Don't get me wrong, many of the Hadith are great lessons.  I'm not a non Muslim who dislikes the Hadith.  I'm just trying to get an understanding on how is has come that in a number of cases they have superceded the Quran. 

The most evident of these is just the stoning versus whipping.  There are others, few but important. 

I guess, I'm talking about punishments for crimes detailed in the Quran and Hadith.  Which takes precedence? 

024.001
YUSUFALI: A sura which We have sent down and which We have ordained in it have We sent down Clear Signs, in order that ye may receive admonition.

024.002
YUSUFALI: The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.

024.003
YUSUFALI: Let no man guilty of adultery or fornication marry and but a woman similarly guilty, or an Unbeliever: nor let any but such a man or an Unbeliever marry such a woman: to the Believers such a thing is forbidden.

024.004
YUSUFALI: And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not four witnesses (to support their allegations),- flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors;-

This is VERY clear.  There really isn't very much that can be misinterpreted here.  Its pretty simple.

Yet.... I draw your attention to the bottom of this fatwa. 

Name of Questioner Usama   - United Kingdom Title How Islam Views Adultery Question Dear scholars, as-salamu `alaykum. Can you please provide me with verses from Qur�an and the Sunnah regarding adultery? I mean anything regarding the punishment of adultery and how the adulterer is seen in the eyes of Allah. Jazakum Allah khayran. Date 16/Nov/2006 Name of Counsellor Ahmad Kutty, IOL Shari`ah Researchers Topic Adultery & Fornication

Answer

Wa`alaykum As-Salamu wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh. In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger. Dear brother in Islam, we would like to thank you for the great confidence you place in us, and we implore Allah Almighty to help us serve His cause and render our work for His Sake. Islam has taken a firm and decisive stance against Zina (fornication or adultery). Allah, the Almighty, commands in explicit and unequivocal words: (And come not near unto adultery. Lo! it is an abomination and an evil way) (Al-Isra� 17: 32). Thus, Islam not only prohibits Zina, but also closes all the avenues and means leading to it. This is achieved by prohibiting every step and means leading to stimulating desires, opening ways for illicit sexual relations between men and women, and promoting indecency and obscenity. In his response to your question, Sheikh Ahmad Kutty, a senior lecturer and Islamic scholar at the Islamic Institute of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, states: Adultery in Islam is one of the most heinous and deadliest of sins. Its enormity can be gauged from the fact that it has often been conjoined in the Qur�an with the gravest of all sins: shirk or associating partners with Allah. The enormity of this sin is no small measure due to its dire consequences affecting individuals, families, and societies. Among these are that it entails infidelity and erodes the trust and tranquility that are the foundations of a fulfilling family life; it dissipates one�s energies; it undermines peace at home; it corrodes the purity of one�s soul and hence destroys one�s faith; finally, it exposes the person to the wrath of Allah, thus resulting in eternal damnation. It is no wonder then that Allah and His Messenger have sounded dire warnings against adultery in so many ways. To list only a few instances: Allah says in the Qur�an, (And come not near unto adultery. Lo! it is an abomination and an evil way) (Al-Isra� 17: 32). (And the servants of the Beneficent) are those who do not invoke another god with Allah, and who do not�commit fornication/adultery, for whoever does that shall receive the penalty; for him shall the torment be doubled on the day of resurrection, and therein he shall abide forever, disgraced, save him who repents and believes and does good works; those, Allah shall change their misdeeds into good works. And Allah is Forgiving, Compassionate) (Al-Furqan: 68-70). The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, �Whoever guarantees me that he will guard his chastity, I will guarantee him Paradise� (Al-Bukhari). Abu Hurayrah reports that the Messenger of Allah said, �No one commits adultery while still remaining a believer, for faith is more precious unto Allah than such an evil act!� In another version, it is stated, �When a person commits adultery he casts away from his neck the bond that ties him to Islam; if, however, he repents, Allah will accept his repentance� (Al-Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, An-Nisa�i and others). The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) further said: �[Under Islamic laws in an Islamic state] It is not lawful to shed the blood of a Muslim except for one of three sins: a married person committing fornication, and in just retribution for premeditated murder, and [for sin of treason involving] a person renouncing Islam, and thus leaving the community [to join the enemy camp in order to wage war against the faithful].� (Al-Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, and An-Nasa�i) During his ascension, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was escorted by Jibreel and shown different types of punishments meted out to those guilty of various major offenses. While recounting the various scenes shown to him, he said, �Then Jibreel took me and we passed by a group of people with terribly inflated bodies emitting worst foul smells just like that of open sewers; when I enquired who they were, he replied, �These are those who commit adultery!�� (Ibn Khuzaymah) The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: �Faith is like a shirt that Allah places on those He chooses; but whoever commits adultery his shirt will be taken off from him; if he were to repent sincerely, Allah will place it back on him.� (Al-Bayhaqi) �There are three types of sinners that Allah will not speak to on the Day of Resurrection; neither He will purify them nor will He even look at them; rather they will suffer severe punishment: an older person who commits adultery, a king or ruler who lies to his subjects, and a poor person who acts arrogantly!� (Muslim and An-Nasa�i) �When adultery becomes rampant in a nation Allah will expose them to His chastisement.� (Abu Ya`la) �When promiscuous behavior becomes rampant in a nation, Allah will send upon them such (strange) diseases that their own ancestors never heard of.� (At-Tabarani) �There are seven categories of people who will be granted protection under the shade of Allah on the Day when there is no other shade;� among them is a young person who is seduced by a woman of great beauty and wealth and yet he rejected her advances saying �I fear Allah!�� (Al-Bukhari and Muslim) The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, �O mankind! Beware of fornication/adultery for it entails six dire consequences: three of them relating to this world and three to the next world. As for the three that are related to this world, they are the following: it removes the glow of one�s face, brings poverty, and reduces the life-span. As for its dire consequences in the next world they are: it brings down the wrath of Allah upon the person, subjects him to terrible reckoning, and finally casts him in hell-fire� (Al-Bayhaqi). Excerpted, with slight modifications, from: http://www.muslims.ca/ - www.muslims.ca Given the above, it is to be noted that the punishment specified for an unmarried person guilty of fornication in the Shari`ah is 100. In the very beginning of Surat An-Nur, it is stated that: (The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment) (An-Nur 24: 2). As for the punishment specified in the Shari`ah for the married adulterer or adulteress, it is stoning to death. In the Kuwaiti Encyclopedia of Islamic Jurisprudence, we read the following: Ibn Qudamah wrote: �Muslim jurists are unanimous on the fact stoning to death is a specified punishment for married adulterer and adulteress. The punishment is recorded in number of traditions and the practice of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) stands as an authentic source supporting it. This is the view held by all Companions, Successors and other Muslim scholars...�

Name of Questioner S. C   - Belgium Title Repentance for Zina Question Sheikh, As-Salamu `Alaykum wa Rahmatullah wa Baraktuh. While I was on a business trip abroad, I had an uncontrollable erotic urge, and regrettably, I committed Zina (adultery). I am a married man, and my wife is three month pregnant. Now, I am filled with remorse and I don�t know what to do and what is my legal status towards my wife? Date 03/Jun/2002 Name of Mufti Yusuf Al-Qaradawi Topic Adultery & Fornication, Love & Sex

This is more of a curiosity piece, but this man wronged his wife, why is he instructed not to tell her and seek her forgiveness too????  What if he got sick because of his affair?  Ugh, I hate double standards.  Stone the woman even if she's repentent, tell the man to keep it a secret and pray.   grrrrr.

Answer

I am asking this question because I've seen a couple of times where hadith have been used to supercede the Quran in arguements.

Since the Quran is the word of Allah and ahadith the word of the prophet who represents allah neither in reality take precedence over the the other. But the Quran has been preserved while ahadith need verification on there authenticity so for practical purposes there can be doubt placed on any hadith not rigorously authenticated.

The Quran is said to be perfect.  Hadith are used to clarify.  But what if they come into conflict.

The scholar should then investigate the reason for the contradiction but if no reason can be found and in some rare cases this has occurred, in matters of law the Quran takes precedence.

Example for sake of clarification. 

Fornication/Adultery. 

Punishment from the Quran:  80 lashes.

Punishment from Hadith: Stoning.

Which is the higher law?

Neither, you dont seem to have an eye for detail

The 80 lashes are for people who are not married while the stoning is for people who are married.

If God dictates very specific punishments, how can anything else be used?  I have seen hadith (unverified and verified) used to argue points that were in contrary to the wording of the Quran.  Some local sharia courts using weak hadith that support cultural belief over the very clear wording of the Quran.

Maybe this is your perception only or maybe there is some principle of law behind the decision which an unqualified person will not know or maybe these people are simply wrong in there judgment.

If your asking about pure islamic law dont look to local scholars or courts or whatever to get an answer this is like expecting every muslim on the street to be a walking Quran and the perfect representative of islam and using that as a basis for your assessment of what islam says and does not say. You have to look at the Islamic legal experts or rather law in its pure form not as it is being practiced today among uneducated people.

I've seen alot of discussion on scholars, hadiths and fiqh.  But, in the end, how do you assign authority?

If no reason can be ascertained for the contradiction and in reality it is a contradiction then the Quran is taken above hadith, this is a universal principle among scholars. But in many cases people assume there is a contradiction when in reality there isnt.

 I am in agreement with rami that Quran takes precedence, in this order, as follows:

1. Quran,  2,  Sunnah (the practice ofthe prophet). 3. Hadith ( that is sayings of the prophet).

It easy to understand that the adulterer will be given 80lashes only and no stoning to death. That was the law os Moses (stoning). It may have been practiced for the Jews only or for the Muslims too beofre the revelation of Surah Noor.

There is no difference in a married adulterer or an unmarried adulterer. That is a mistake of the Ulema to differentiate between married and unmarried. There is no stoning for the adulterer any where in the Quran. So, that is settled.

But otherwise also the Quran takes precedence over everything. Any Hadith which goes against the Quran cannot be accepted easily.

 The matter of stoning any adulterer will be considered same as prayer used to be offered facing Jeroshlem in the early years. But it is no more allowed to do so.

There is no difference between a married adulterer and unmarried. THERE is no allowance to any one for the act of adultry.

"This is more of a curiosity piece, but this man wronged his wife, why is he instructed not to tell her and seek her forgiveness too????  What if he got sick because of his affair?  Ugh, I hate double standards.  Stone the woman even if she's repentent, tell the man to keep it a secret and pray.   grrrrr."

Actually a person is not supposed to make public their sins when Allah has concealed them.  Even a person that converts to Islam, should not mention his sins from jahiliyah to others.  I remember a story (may Allah forgive me if I'm wrong), a sahabi came to the Prophet (s.a.w) and admitted to having commited zina (no one else knew about it) and requested punishment.  The Prophet (s.a.w) told him he shouldn't have told but since he'd already admitted to the crime, he was punished.  This isn't only for men, the same applies to women.

 I have to write more because of angela. I believe that there is no stoning to death for an adulterer, married or unmarried. The verse of Surah Noor is very clear about it. There is to be 100 lashes only. There are people who say that according to Hadith the married adulterer should be stoned to death. That cannot be true.

The reason they give is that there is a secret meaning in that verse of Surah Noor and it is in regard of the unmarried adulterer only and it is not about the married adulterer. I don't see any secret meaning. The verse No.1 of the chapter is stating clearly:

24:1,  This is a chapter that we have revealed and made its commands binding and we have revealed in it the clear signs (verses and commands) so that you may remember them.

In the verse it says that there are clear un-ambigous meanings (verses). There is no secret meaning. It is very clear (Bayyan) meaning.

I take the original practice of the prophet the same as he was praying facing towards Jerushlem in the beginning until the new orders arrived. After that he never did it. The punishment for adultery in the Torah is stoning to death and that is what the prophet practiced untill the chapter Noor was revealed.

There is another interesting point in this matter. It is the order in ch. 4:25 that if any married Muslimah (maid, slave) servant indulges in adultery, her punishment is half that of a free married woman.

Now, please tell me, if the punishment for the married woman is stoning to death then how will you make that punishment to half. How can the stoning to death be made half?? that shows clearly that the punishment for the married and unmarried men and women is only 100 lashes as ordered by the Quran. It is not stoning to death.

Similarly, there is no punishment for an apostate, unless there be a state of war. Any one is allowed to become a Muslim. If he gets dis-satisfied with Islam, he can denounce it clearly and walk away. If he has not killed any one in the process then there is no punishment for him. Nothing is mentioned in the Quran that an apostate has to be killed. That is all against the basic principle of the Quran which states that "There is no compulsion in the  matters of religion." 2:256.

Angela,

Qur'aan stands supreme over hadith. Stoning people to death is Murder under a different name.

The Lord Almighty expects people to repent and turn to Him. How can people repent if they are not given a chance?

If stoning to death had been ordained, it would have been followed strictly in all Muslim states.

The only death sentence prescribed in Qur'aan is for premeditated murder.

If you read the hadith literature, it has even details on how to lash. The lashing is for shaming in public so that others are careful. Lashing has to be done so as to avoid tearing the skin apart.

In Islam, Zina (Illegal sexual intercourse) is forbidden. It covers all, whether married, single, boy, girl, etc. Both found guilty should be lashed.

Arab wrote: the stoning penalty is impossible to be applied. it needs four witnesses who saw the entire act of adultry from begening till end. this is impossible. the law is there, just to scare them. its impossible some one is going 2 get stoned because when ppl have sexual intercourse they do it in private where are four witnesses going to come from and watch the entire thing? Impossible. If someone is caught with four witnesses who saw him do it he should be stoned for being st**id enough to get caught :p the fact is, the law is there, but never would it be possible to stone one.

Assalam Aleikum.

It was applied in the day of the Prophet (saw) and can still be applied, one of the other requirements is a confession, and people have freely confessed.

Bismillah irrahman irrahim

Assalamu alaykum

minuteman wrote:    I have to write more because of angela. I believe that there is no stoning to death for an adulterer, married or unmarried. The verse of Surah Noor is very clear about it. There is to be 100 lashes only. There are people who say that according to Hadith the married adulterer should be stoned to death. That cannot be true. The reason they give is that there is a secret meaning in that verse of Surah Noor and it is in regard of the unmarried adulterer only and it is not about the married adulterer. I don't see any secret meaning. The verse No.1 of the chapter is stating clearly: 24:1,  This is a chapter that we have revealed and made its commands binding and we have revealed in it the clear signs (verses and commands) so that you may remember them. In the verse it says that there are clear un-ambigous meanings (verses). There is no secret meaning. It is very clear (Bayyan) meaning. I take the original practice of the prophet the same as he was praying facing towards Jerushlem in the beginning until the new orders arrived. After that he never did it. The punishment for adultery in the Torah is stoning to death and that is what the prophet practiced untill the chapter Noor was revealed. There is another interesting point in this matter. It is the order in ch. 4:25 that if any married Muslimah (maid, slave) servant indulges in adultery, her punishment is half that of a free married woman. Now, please tell me, if the punishment for the married woman is stoning to death then how will you make that punishment to half. How can the stoning to death be made half?? that shows clearly that the punishment for the married and unmarried men and women is only 100 lashes as ordered by the Quran. It is not stoning to death. Similarly, there is no punishment for an apostate, unless there be a state of war. Any one is allowed to become a Muslim. If he gets dis-satisfied with Islam, he can denounce it clearly and walk away. If he has not killed any one in the process then there is no punishment for him. Nothing is mentioned in the Quran that an apostate has to be killed. That is all against the basic principle of the Quran which states that "There is no compulsion in the  matters of religion." 2:256.

This is very interesting for me, brother is this your own view or is it view of some scholar? The reason i am asking is because saying that the revelation of Surah Noor was after those ahadith which mention stoning requires a very detailed knoweldge of Holy Quran and that of ahadith. But what you have explained of punishment for a slave girl makes quite alot of sense but again if it is coming from a common person then i am sure there is going to be a good explanation of it with the scholars.

If anyone is picking such a big issue then you have to have backing of good early and later generation of scholars. The other issue you raised about apostate, scholars like Maulana Mawdudi do write a small passage of banishment so there is a small window but no one give attention to it reason not entirely known to me. So what you saying is not existence of two views but you are talking about abrogation of a law. Then there have to be scholars from early or later period who you can mention of telling us about the time period of that abrogation?

Another thing you mentioned is Holy Qur'an being clear, please also see the ayaah in Aale Imraan:7 which mentions that there are some clear ayaat and some not very clear ones. And also in many places Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala says that Holy Quran is a guidance for people of taqwa, for people of understanding and for people who fear their Lord.

wassalam

Dear fatima,

I would like to make some comments:

It was indeed good of you to have brought up Verse 7 from Surah 3 Ale-Imraan and I will do a transliteration followed by translation and comments:

"Howal-lazi anzala alaikal kitaaba minho aayatum-muhkamaatun, hunna ummul kitaabe wa ukhro mutashaabihaat. Fa-ammal-lazeena fee qulubehim zaighun, fa-yat-tabe-oona ma tashaabaha minhub-tighaa'al fitnate wabtighaaa'a taaweelehe. Wama ya'alamo taaweelahu ill-Al-lah. * War-raasekhuna fil-ilme yaquloona, 'Aamanna bayhe, qullum min inday-rabbayna'. Wa ma yaz-zakkaro illa oo'lool-albaab."

Simple explanatory translation:

"Allah is the one who gave you this book, in which there are clearly decreed verses, these are the essence/foundation of this book and others are allegorical. As for those people whose hearts swerve to dig other meanings, go after the allegorical verses creating confusion by  presenting their own explanation. No one knows the explanation of such verses but only Allah. * And those of sound knowledge say, 'We believe in this and it is all from our Lord'. And those of understanding do keep this in mind." 

My point: Right at the start of the Chapter, Allah warned us not to delve and dig meanings from verses which were allegorical, parable-like or examples. It does not mean that Allah did not let anyone understand the allegorical verses. It means those gifted with knowledge would be able to understand them correctly. In both passages above, I have shown the exact positions of commas and full-stops (period) clearly for all here. I have used the sign * to show the break between verses and that break is very important. It is known as waqfe-laazim. One must stop at that point.

And right here, where Allah explained,  two sects of Islam differ in reading. I would not name them.

One reads as "No one knows the explanation of such verses but only Allah. And those of sound knowledge say,......" (Correct)

The other reads the same as "No one knows the explanation of such verses but only Allah and those of sound knowledge say,....." (Incorrect)

My next point: Thus the decrees and commands are clearly ordained. No confusion is left in.

Let us take V14 and V15 of Surah 4 Al-Nisa:

For V14, it is said that "For those women who have been accused of indecency, get 4 witnesses from you and if they witness positively, keep them within the homes till they die or till Allah finds a way out for them." Now some scholars believe that Allah found the way and later the death punishment of stoning was the way, according to scholars of Hadith!! 

And in V15, "If two men,  from you, were found committing indeceny, punish them but if they repent and turn better, leave the both alone."  

How could we say that the woman must be put to death and the men can go scott-free? If we are supposed to learn, read and understand Qur'aan and have been ordered by Allah to deliberate over Qur'aan, why cannot we deliberate on Ahaadith? 

There are hardly a few cases reported in Hadith for justifying stoning to death as punishment. This punishment was never rampant.

I can go on and on with many examples but time does not permit. All I want to say that we have been gifted with Qur'aan and we have been allowed by the Lord Almighty to think and reflect over it's verses. Surah Noor is crystal clear, why make it dim by jumping over to a death punishment quoting a few examples from Hadith?

For Qur'aan, it is said in Qur'aan,"Haaza bayaanul-lil-naas." meaning "This Qur'aan states clearly for people."

Please forgive me, if I have made any mistake in quoting, transliterating and translating in my own English. The idea is to let all know what I know and what I understand. I am not a scholar. May Allah forgive me too. Ameen.

Salaam Alaikum

BMZ

 Please allow me. I am not a follower of Maulana Maudoodi sahib. But I remember one important good advice (or writing) of the maulana that is as follows:

"Those things which are very serious such as Eiman and Kufr or life and death matters, for them the order should come from the Quran. Such matters should not be decided by the Hadith alone."

Now, please look. According to the above writing, the order for stoning must come from the Quran. It cannot be left to the Hadith alone. And there is nothing (not a word) in he Quran about stoning the adulterer to death. I will write mor elater, Insha Allah.

Sign*Reader wrote: Andalus wrote: Arab wrote: the stoning penalty is impossible to be applied. it needs four witnesses who saw the entire act of adultry from begening till end. this is impossible. the law is there, just to scare them. its impossible some one is going 2 get stoned because when ppl have sexual intercourse they do it in private where are four witnesses going to come from and watch the entire thing? Impossible. If someone is caught with four witnesses who saw him do it he should be stoned for being st**id enough to get caught :p the fact is, the law is there, but never would it be possible to stone one. Assalam Aleikum. It was applied in the day of the Prophet (saw) and can still be applied, one of the other requirements is a confession, and people have freely confessed.   How did they find four witnesses who sat there and watched like a porn?

They had a confession which suffices as equal to four witnesses, and Allah Knows Best.

Bismillah irrahman irrahim

Assalamu alaykum

JazakAllah khair brother BMZ for explaining the ayah in detail and i agree with what you said but reason i quoted the ayah was that every1 keeps quoting the ayaat, Holy Quran is easy to understand. But forget that there are parts which are not clear enough for every1 to understand.

Surah Noor was revealed in Madinah but Sayyidina Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wassalam also punished three sahabah with punishment of stoning in Madinah. Also case of some jews bringing their dispute of same type to him and asking him to decide and revelation of 5:15 happening relating that matter. Thing is all our Khulfae rashideen kept the law of stoning, first three generations had a unanimous views about it, almost every well known and respected scholar of later generations had this view. Pick any well known and world wide accepted tafsir and read the explanation and reason behind the revelation of 5:15 and you will see where stoning is prescribed in Holy Quran.

I am taking this from Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Allah says:

[������������ ����������� ������������ ����� ������� ���������� �������� ��������]

(The Zaniyah and the Zani, flog each of them with a hundred stripes.) This honorable Ayah contains the ruling on the law of retaliation for the person who commits illegal sex, and details of the punishment. Such a person will either be unmarried, meaning that he has never been married, or he will be married, meaning that he has had intercourse within the bounds of a lawful marriage, and he is free, adult and of sound mind. As for the virgin who is unwedded, the prescribed punishment is one hundred stripes, as stated in this Ayah. In addition to this he is to be banished from his homeland for one year, as was recorded in the Two Sahihs from Abu Hurayrah and Zayd bin Khalid Al-Juhani in the Hadith about the two bedouins who came to the Messenger of Allah . One of them said, "O Messenger of Allah, this son of mine was employed by this man, and committed Zina with his wife. I paid a ransom with him on behalf of my son one hundred sheep and a slave-girl, but when I asked the people of knowledge, they said that my son should be given one hundred stripes and banished for a year, and that this man's wife should be stoned to death.'' The Messenger of Allah said:

���������� ������� �������� ������������� ����������� ��������� ����� ������� ������������ ����������� ����� �������� ������ ������� ������ ������� ����������� ����� ������� ��� �������� �������� ���� �������� ����� ��������� ���ǡ������ ����������� �����������ǻ

(By the One in Whose Hand is my soul, I will judge between you both according to the Book of Allah. Take back the slave-girl and sheep, and your son is to be given one hundred stripes and banished for one year. O Unays -- he said to a man from the tribe of Aslam -- go to this man's wife, and if she confesses, then stone her to death.) Unays went to her and she confessed, so he stoned her to death. This indicates that if the person who is guilty of illegal sex is a virgin and unmarried, he should be banished in addition to being given one hundred stripes. But if married, meaning he has had intercourse within the bounds of lawful marriage, and he is free, adult and of sound mind, then he should be stoned to death. Imam Malik recorded that `Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, stood up and praised and glorified Allah, then he said; "O people! Allah sent Muhammad with the truth, and revealed to him the Book. One of the things that was revealed to him was the Ayah of stoning to death, which we have recited and understood. The Messenger of Allah carried out the punishment of stoning and after him we did so, but I am afraid that as time goes by, some will say that they did not find the Ayah of stoning in the Book of Allah, and they will go astray because they abandoned one of the obligations revealed by Allah. Stoning is something that is prescribed in the Book of Allah for the person -- man or woman -- who commits illegal sex, if he or she is married, if decisive evidence is produced, or if pregnancy results from that, or if they confess to it.'' It was also recorded in the Two Sahihs in the lengthy Hadith of Malik, from which we have quoted briefly only the portion that is relevant to the current discussion.

I am not knowledgable enough, all i know is that if what has been passed down to us was said by Umar radhiAllah anhu then i fear my Lord to say anything on contrary. As brother Arad has said that islamic condition for witnessing makes it almost immposible to prove but law of our Most Supreme Lord is there according to sahih traditions and Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala knows best.

Wassalam

 Some cases were reported and some were confessed by the adulterer himself. The prophet s.a.w.s. turned his face to the otherside as he had not heard anything. But the sinner insisted and confessed again and again. So he was punished.

But please forget those cases if they happened before the revelation of the Surah Noor (24). The prophet was very well acting on the law of the Torah at that time. When the order for 100 lashes was revealed in chapter 24, then after that it was a different thing. Let us continue discussing it. Thanks.

I see that there is no mention of stoning to death of the adulterer in the Quran. Ulema are of the opinion that serious matters about faith (Kufar and Islam) or life and death cannot be decided by a Hadith alone. proof for that should come from the Quran. This being a matter of life and death, it cannot be left to the Hadith alone. In the Jewish law the punishment for adultry is stoning to death. We are not Jews.

Bismillah irrahman irrahim

bmzsp wrote: My next point: Thus the decrees and commands are clearly ordained. No confusion is left in. Let us take V14 and V15 of Surah 4 Al-Nisa: For V14, it is said that "For those women who have been accused of indecency, get 4 witnesses from you and if they witness positively, keep them within the homes till they die or till Allah finds a way out for them." Now some scholars believe that Allah found the way and later the death punishment of stoning was the way, according to scholars of Hadith!!  And in V15, "If two men,  from you, were found committing indeceny, punish them but if they repent and turn better, leave the both alone."   How could we say that the woman must be put to death and the men can go scott-free? If we are supposed to learn, read and understand Qur'aan and have been ordered by Allah to deliberate over Qur'aan, why cannot we deliberate on Ahaadith?  Salaam Alaikum BMZ

Wa'alaykum assalam wa rahmatullahe wa barakatuhu

When you quoted the ayaat above i did not know the explanation, time period or reason behind them but one thing i was sure about was that my Lord is Most Just and there is a good explanation which us, common people cannot see.

Tafsir Ibn Kathir

The Adulteress is Confined in her House; A Command Later Abrogated

(4:15. And those of your women who commit illegal sexual intercourse, take the evidence of four witnesses from among you against them; and if they testify, confine them (i.e. women) to houses until death comes to them or Allah ordains for them some (other) way.) (16. And the two persons among you who commit illegal sexual intercourse, punish them both. And if they repent and do righteous good deeds, leave them alone. Surely, Allah is Ever the One Who accepts repentance, (and He is) Most Merciful.)

At the begining of Islam, the ruling was that if a woman commits adultery as stipulated by sufficient proof, she was confined to her home, without leave, until she died. Allah said,

[���������� ��������� ������������]

���� �����

[��� ������������ ���������������� ����������� ��������� ��������� ����� ��������� ���������������� ��� ���������� ������ ��������������� ��������� ���� �������� ������� ������� ��������]

(And those of your women who commit illegal sexual intercourse, take the evidence of four witnesses from among you against them; and if they testify, confine them (i.e. women) to houses until death comes to them or Allah ordains for them some (other) way.) `Some other way' mentioned here is the abrogation of this ruling that came later. Ibn `Abbas said, "The early ruling was confinement, until Allah sent down Surat An-Nur (chapter 24) which abrogated that ruling with the ruling of flogging (for fornication) or stoning to death (for adultery).'' Similar was reported from `Ikrimah, Sa`id bin Jubayr, Al-Hasan, `Ata' Al-Khurasani, Abu Salih, Qatadah, Zayd bin Aslam and Ad-Dahhak, and this is a matter that is agreed upon. Imam Ahmad recorded that `Ubadah bin As-Samit said, "When the revelation descended upon the Messenger of Allah , it would affect him and his face would show signs of strain. One day, Allah sent down a revelation to him, and when the Messenger was relieved of its strain, he said,

������� ������� ���� ������ ����� ������� �������ǡ ���������� ������������� ����������� ������������ ������������ ������ ������� �������� ��������������� ����������� ������ ������� ����� ������ ����ɻ

(Take from me: Allah has made some other way for them. The married with the married, the unmarried with the unmarried. The married gets a hundred lashes and stoning to death, while the unmarried gets a hundred lashes then banishment for a year.)'' Muslim and the collectors of the Sunan recorded that `Ubadah bin As-Samit said that the Prophet said,

������� ������ ������ ������� ���� ������ ����� ������� �������ǡ ��������� ����������� ������ ������� ����������� ����� ������������ ������������ ������ ������� ����������

(Take from me, take from me. Allah has made some other way for them: the (unmarried) gets a hundred lashes and banishment for one year, while the (married) gets a hundred lashes and stoning to death.) At-Tirmidhi said, "Hasan Sahih''. Allah said,

[������������ �������������� ������� �������������]

(And the two persons among you who commit illegal sexual intercourse, punish them both.) Ibn `Abbas and Sa`id bin Jubayr said that this punishment includes cursing, shaming them and beating them with sandals. This was the ruling until Allah abrogated it with flogging or stoning, as we stated. Mujahid said, "It was revealed about the case of two men who do it.'' As if he was referring to the actions of the people of Lut, and Allah knows best. The collectors of Sunan recorded that Ibn `Abbas said that the Messenger of Allah said,

����� ������������� �������� ������ ������ ����� ����������� ���������� �������������� ���

(Whoever you catch committing the act of the people of Lut (homosexuality), then kill both parties to the act.) Allah said,

[����� ������ �����������]

(And if they repent and do righteous good deeds), by refraining from that evil act, and thereafter their actions become righteous,

[������������� ���������]

(leave them alone), do not verbally abuse them after that, since he who truly repents is just like he who has no sin,

[����� ������� ����� ��������� ���������]

(Surely, Allah is Ever the One Who accepts repentance, Most Merciful.) The following is recorded in the Two Sahihs:

������ ������ ������ ����������� ��������������� �������� ����� ��������� ��������ǻ

(When the slave-girl of one of you commits illegal sexual intercouse, let him flog her and not chastise her afterwards. ) because the lashes she receives erase the sin that she has committed.

Wassalam

Bismillah irrahman irrahim

Assalamu alaykum

minuteman wrote:    But please forget those cases if they happened before the revelation of the Surah Noor (24). The prophet was very well acting on the law of the Torah at that time. When the order for 100 lashes was revealed in chapter 24, then after that it was a different thing. Let us continue discussing it. Thanks.

Thats what i tried to ask you in my previous post, if such a major law was abrogated there must be a mention of it in islamic law books.

minuteman wrote:   I see that there is no mention of stoning to death of the adulterer in the Quran. Ulema are of the opinion that serious matters about faith (Kufar and Islam) or life and death cannot be decided by a Hadith alone. proof for that should come from the Quran. This being a matter of life and death, it cannot be left to the Hadith alone. In the Jewish law the punishment for adultry is stoning to death. We are not Jews.

Alhamdulillah we are muslims brother and those of first three generations and our leaders of that time were more sincere and devout believers than us lot. What i am asking is why does our history tells us that the law was of stoning for adulterer in that time. Did those people who spent their lives with Sayyidina Muhammad sallallahu alyhi wassalam and learnt everything from him somehow missed an abrogation of such a major issue?

Again i have to ask you to please bring view of some known scholars that law of stoning was abrogated. I have searched for ayaah 4:25 to find out the meaning, this is how Ibn kathir translates it, 

4:25. And whoever of you have not the means wherewith to wed free believing women, they may wed believing girls from among those whom your right hands possess, and Allah has full knowledge about your faith, you are one from another. Wed them with the permission of their own folk (guardians) and give them their due in a good manner; they should be chaste, not fornicators, nor promiscuous. And after they have been taken in wedlock, if they commit Fahishah, their punishment is half that for free (unmarried) women. This is for him among you who is afraid of being harmed in his religion or in his body; but it is better for you that you practice self-restraint, and Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.)

I knew majority of people would not get satisfied with it like me because we are not sure why did he put unmarried women, Maybe because it suits his view? or is there another reason behind it? So i searched further and this is how Maulana Mawdudi explains it

Then if they become guilty of immoral conduct after they have entered into wedlock, they shall be liable to half the penalty to which free women (muhsanat) are liable. *46*46.A superficial reading of this verse can lead to the mistaken conclusion, as Khawarij and others have done, that stoning is not the prescribed punishment for adultery. Such people ask: If stoning is the prescribed punishment for extra-marital sexual intercourse, then how is it possible to halve that punishment with regard to slave-girls? Such people have not noted carefully the wording of this verse. In this section (see verses 24-5) the term muhsanat (protected women) is used in two different meanings. First, it is used in the sense of 'married women', that is, those who enjoy the protection of their husbands. Second, it is used in the sense of 'women belonging to families', i.e. those who enjoy the protection of families even though they may not be married. In the verse under discussion, the word muhsanat is used in the latter sense, i.e. in the sense of women who enjoy the protection of families as opposed to slave-girls. At the same time, the word is also used in the first meaning, when slave-girls have acquired the protection accorded by the contract of marriage (fa idha uhsinna), they will be liable to the punishment laid down in this verse if they have unlawful Sexual intercourse.
It is therefore apparent that a free woman enjoys two kinds of protection. One is the protection of her family through which she remains protected even when she is not married. The second is the protection of her husband, which reinforces the protection of the family that she already enjoys. As long as the slave-girl remains a slave, she does not enjoy the protection of the family. However, when she is married she has the protection of her husband - and of her husband alone. This protection is partial. Even after marriage she is neither liberated from the bond of her master nor does she attain the status enjoyed by free women. The punishment prescribed for a married slave-girl is accordingly half the punishment of an unmarried free woman rather than half that of a married free woman.
This also explains that the punishment for unlawful sexual intercourse (zina) laid down in Surah al-Nur 24: 2 refers to the offence committed by unmarried free women alone, and it is in comparison with their punishment that the punishment of married slave women has been laid down as half. As for free married women, they deserve more severe punishment than the unmarried free women (muhsanat) for they violate the double protection. Even though the Qur'an does not specifically mention punishment by stoning it does allude to it in a subtle manner.

Wassalam

Bismillah irrahman irrahim

Wa'alaykum assalam wa rahmatullahe wa barakatuhu

Sign*Reader wrote: ASA sister Fatima;   Here an obvious reading of the Holy Quraan settles some issue and still we are talking about scholars. Why do we need scholars for such simple stuff ? Not that a judgment is at hand and punishment needs to be applied! Doesn't it make sense to keep the Quraanic reading as simple as possible and not go looking for the hidden meaning  when it isn't the case.

Brother islamic laws were implemented in best of their shape during time of our first four caliphs. Umar radhiAllah anhu who was given the title of 'Just' had stoning down as a punishment for adultery. I can not even for a second doubt anything about people who were told that they are poeple of paradise in their lifetime.

Second issue of following a scholar, brother Holy Quran tells us in its opening ayaat, Alif Lam Mim, this is the book in which there is no doubt, a guidance for Muttaqin. Who believe in the Unseen, are steadfast in prayer, and spend out of what We have provided for them;
So this book is guidance for people who believe in unseen, alhamdulillah we do. Next thing is, 'are steadfast in prayer', So how do you perform you prayer brother? Did you just open Holy Qur'an and learnt it from there or did you have to look it into sunnah? Who has compiled those ahadith and sunnah books? I dont think you can just pick and choose ahadith from those books and start praying. There are so many different ahadith telling different ways and regulations. Which ones would you know are best to follow? You would have to look at the line of transmission, look at people who are relating them. what would tell you which transmission is sahih and who is a reliable source?

Brother thats where my problem starts, this is a thing in which we have no option but to follow learned people. This is regarding a matter of religion which concerns us alone, so blame of others is not an issue. But as soon as a point comes where we have to take a stand, have to face harsh words of people we back down. Why? because we dont need the scholars and its about time we rely on our own intelligence. No, if i know that most important pillar of my belief system requires me to follow and rely on works of more learned people, i have no shame in admitting it.

wassalam

p.s. I am sorry about carrying on and on but i thing every concern has to be addressed in such a major issue.

 In reply to Fatima, who wrote:

 Thats what i tried to ask you in my previous post, if such a major law was abrogated there must be a mention of it in islamic law books.

There is no need of any abrogation when there was no law of stoning. Can you find any word about stoning in the Quran?? No. So, there is no need for any verse which should abrogate some thing which is not there. I had told you that the prophet usefully acted according to oldest rebvealed law (i.e. Torah) untill new orders arrived.

Same is the case of change of Qiblah. Do you find any verse which tells the Prophet and the Muslims to pray facing Jeroshlem?? No. That is why there is no verse in the Quran which says that in future do not face Jeroshlem. There is an order to always face Ka'abah. But there is no word about forbidding to face Jeroshlem.

 I am not aware about how long the stoning was in practice. I do not agree with Maudoodi sahib. You just try to read his commentary of Surah Noor and you will find out that he has made a mess of the whole Muslim practice and the whole law of Shariayah. He has written about 20 pages to explain and to support that 100 lashes are for the unmarried adulterer. Why di dhe do that?? There was no need at all.

He did it becuase he thought there is a secret meaning in the word Zaani. But there is no secret. Allah says in the same verse that these orders are Bayyan. But Maudoodi sahib says, "No." They are not Bayyan (Clear and explicit). That was bad.

 if they commit Fahishah, their punishment is half that for free (unmarried) women.

Now come to verse of Chapter 4 which you have mentioned about the punishment for the slave girl. In that also maudoodi sahib has taken a wrong line. He has tried to mix up the meaning of "Mukhsanaat", i.e. the plural of "Mukhsinah". Every one knows that Mukhsinah is a lady protected by marriage. But maudoodi sahib thinks (and he is wrong) that any young free girl who is not yet married and living in her fathers house is also a mukhsinah. That is not true.

For Mukhsinah, please see the very first word of the part 5 of Quran. It is in the same verse. A Mukhsinah is always a lady who has a husband and is living with him in his house. As such she is well protected by marriage and she has no need of any extra marital relations. Fatima, please just tell me the meaning of Mukhsinah, thanks.

Any lady who is not married is not called Mukhsinah. I invite other friends to give their opinion too because I do not want to press on to something wrong. So, when a slave girl is married to some one (she is married), her punishment is half of that of the other married (Mukhsinat) ladies.

Bismillah irrahman irrahim

Assalamu alaykum

minuteman wrote:    In reply to Fatima, who wrote:  Thats what i tried to ask you in my previous post, if such a major law was abrogated there must be a mention of it in islamic law books. There is no need of any abrogation when there was no law of stoning. Can you find any word about stoning in the Quran?? No. So, there is no need for any verse which should abrogate some thing which is not there. I had told you that the prophet usefully acted according to oldest rebvealed law (i.e. Torah) untill new orders arrived. Same is the case of change of Qiblah. Do you find any verse which tells the Prophet and the Muslims to pray facing Jeroshlem?? No. That is why there is no verse in the Quran which says that in future do not face Jeroshlem. There is an order to always face Ka'abah. But there is no word about forbidding to face Jeroshlem.

This is exactly why i dont want people like me and you to divulge in discussion like what followed in your original post. Here is the Ayaah of Holy Quran which orders the change of Qiblah, 2:144 'Indeed We see the turning of your face to heaven, so We shall surely turn you to a qiblah which you shall like; turn then your face towards the Sacred Mosque, and wherever you are, turn your face towards it, and those who have been given the Book most surely know that it is the truth from their Lord; and Allah is not at all heedless of what they do'.

Brother deriving laws comes some ten steps after familiarisation of contents of Holy Qur'an. When companions took from a hadith of Sayyidina Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wassalam that marital relation are haram in month of ramadan, Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala revealed ayaat to clarify it. When a sahabi radhiAllah anhu thought to himself that he would want to marry a wife of prophet after him, Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala revealed ayaat to forbid that and told the ummah that wives of Prophet are Ummhaatul mu'mineen. So do you not think that if such a major issue remained amongst ummah, Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala would have told them very clearly to stop that practice.

And please do not say that there are no such incidents in history when law of stoning was put into practice because you yourself admitted it that there were cases. But then you say because they confessed so the punishment was given and we should leave it at that. Why? if the law was abrogated then does not matter whether some1 confessess or is proven through witnessess, the punishment is same.

Another thing muslims were told very strictly to not follow ways of non muslims, when they face baitul maqdi it was because it was told to them by their Lord.

If you have solid proof from history that law of stoning was abrogated then please bring it forward, otherwise there is no point in going in circles regarding this matter.

About the meaning of Muhsinaat, brother i think Maulana Mawdudi whose mastery of arabic is even acknowledged by scholars having arabic as their mother tongue is more qualified to give you the answer. But as you dont like to hear it from him, please tell me this, what does Holy Qur'an means when it is said that muslim men are allowed to marry 'Muhsinaat' from people of book. If 'Muhsinaat' only means married women as you say, this whole issue becomes very confusing dont you think?

Wassalam

 Fatima: I cannot understand what oto say about all these things when I had explained all very well. Do not ask Maudoodi sahib. Please see the dictionaty meaning or better than that see the Quran onlly. Mukhsanat is for the married ladies. In the example asked by you also the meaning is married ladies of the momineen are lawful and the married ladies of the people of the book are lawful when YOU have given them their dowery and when YOU have taken them in marriage (Mukhsineena)... That means when you have taken them in marriage they are mukhsanat.

I am sorry. I cannot do anything better. There is no order for facing Jeroshlem in Quran. There is verse telling the prophet that Allah will make him face the place of his desire i.e. Ka'abah. But there is no word about facing Jeroslem and there is no word about not to face Jeroshlem.

Similarly, there was the practice of stoning in the life time of the prophet s.a.w.s. But not after the revelation od verses of Surah Noor. There is no such thing. There is no order for stoning in the Quran therefore there is no need for any cancellation orders. So, there is no abrogation.

When it is said in Suarh Noor that these are the clear explicit orders then why do the scholars try to put secret Ihidden) meaning in them. Then yhey have to manipulate the meaning of Mukhsanat also differently for the free ladies and the servant ladies. Why made all the round about turns in religion?

You are asking me:  If you have solid proof from history that law of stoning was abrogated then please bring it forward, otherwise there is no point in going in circles regarding this matter.

Dear why I should provide that?? I do not believe that even one word of the quran is abogated. It is you who is believing in abrogation. So you should provide the proof please.

I respect Maudoodi sahib but I do not agree with him on many counts. He wrote the tafseer from his head according to his wishes that it should be like that and that. That was npt good. I am sorry, I could not go along with many of his views. He believed that there is not going to be any news now from Allah to any one. The Imam Mahdi who will come will not know that he is Imam Mahdi... You see these are not good things. There are many more... I do not want to spread the matter. Maudoodi sahib made many mistakes religiously and politically. He was a political leader.

More later, please do not mind. If you cannot listen to my these points then I will not write any of those things any more. Forgive.

About Hadith, I also learnt my Wudho and Salat from my father and teachers, never from the books of Hadith. I beliece that Hadith is a servant of the Quran and a servant of the Sunnat (Practice ) of the holy prophet s.a.w.s.

minuteman wrote:    Some cases were reported and some were confessed by the adulterer himself. The prophet s.a.w.s. turned his face to the otherside as he had not heard anything. But the sinner insisted and confessed again and again. So he was punished.

There are two methods to determine adultery:

1) confession

2) four witnesses

So it is not a mystery that there are examples of rajm being ordered after someone confesses.

But please forget those cases if they happened before the revelation of the Surah Noor (24).

You are going to have to prove your claim.

Rajm was practiced without hesitation by the followers of the Prophet (saw) after the death of the Prophet (saw).

There is no debate about that.

Perhaps you know something more than the first three generations? Including the first three generations of people in Medina?

The prophet was very well acting on the law of the Torah at that time.

This is simply inaccurate. The Prophet (saw) did not act with the dictates of the Torah, he simply allowed Jews to use their own law, in accordance to Allah (swt).

When the order for 100 lashes was revealed in chapter 24, then after that it was a different thing. Let us continue discussing it. Thanks.

There is no dispute that Rajm was practiced as part of the sacred law well into the later years of the Prophet and it continued after him, and it was a non disputed form of punishment by the companions.

If you have special guidance that the companions were not privy to, I would like to see it?

I see that there is no mention of stoning to death of the adulterer in the Quran.

There is no mention of dead fish being halal, regardless if it died on its own without slaughter, there is also no mention of its blood being "clean".

Your statement is simply erroneous, because it assumes that the Quran is interpreted alone without the context of the Messenger of Allah (saw). If you try to interpret the Quran through your own personal conjecture and whims, then you are deviated from the truth and you risk bringing in forms of "innovation".

The Quran simply does not tell us that rajm is not to be used for adulterers either.

Ulema are of the opinion that serious matters about faith (Kufar and Islam) or life and death cannot be decided by a Hadith alone.

This is a complete fabrication. Hadith can be used to decide serious matters only if they are rigorously authenticated. The issue of rajm has been authenticated, and the Prophet (saw), and the first three generations carried out the practice.

proof for that should come from the Quran. This being a matter of life and death, it cannot be left to the Hadith alone. In the Jewish law the punishment for adultry is stoning to death. We are not Jews.

You are mixed up about the relationship between the Quran and the Hadith. If your "axiom" is true, then one would need the Quran to prove that we do not need to slaughter fish before consumption.

Whether we are Jews or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the proof for using rajm does not come from the Torah, it comes from Allah, and we were taught this form of punishment by Allah through His Messenger.  

 Let us discuss part of the posts now:

There are two methods to determine adultery:

1) confession

2) four witnesses

So it is not a mystery that there are examples of rajm being ordered after someone confesses.

Please confirm from Quran that there were two methods to confirm adultery, especially the first one you have mentioned above.

You are going to have to prove your claim.

Rajm was practiced without hesitation by the followers of the Prophet (saw) after the death of the Prophet (saw).

There is no debate about that.

Perhaps you know something more than the first three generations? Including the first three generations of people in Medina?

 No, I do not know anything. You please provide the proof that Rajm was practiced after the prophet s.a.w.s. passed away. I have little knowledge of Hadith. So, you please help in this matter because this thing relates to Hadith only and not Quran. So, you may be having some definite proof of the practice.

I only know that a few persons were stoned in the time of the prophet s.a.w.s.

This is simply inaccurate. The Prophet (saw) did not act with the dictates of the Torah, he simply allowed Jews to use their own law, in accordance to Allah (swt).

It is accurate as I learnt that the prophet s.a.w.s. did act on the previously revealed law (Of Torah, of course) until a new order came. That was the reason for the facing to Jeroshlem for the daily prayers. Otherwise you have to tell why the prophet s.a.w.s. was facing towards Jeroshlem for prayers for many years. Under what order, under what law??

There is no dispute that Rajm was practiced as part of the sacred law well into the later years of the Prophet and it continued after him, and it was a non disputed form of punishment by the companions.

If you have special guidance that the companions were not privy to, I would like to see it?

I have answered this part above. I do not have any such knowledge. If I had then why shall I argue with you.  I hope there is no such thing. But please remember that you may provide the proof of mere adulterer being stoned after the life of the prophet s.a.w.s. And that there was no case of rape or killing or murder involved in that.

I do not have any special guidance except what I see from the Quran and Sunnah and Hadith. Thanks.

I will be helpful if you provide that stoning was practiced as a punishment for adultry.... Please do.

We will take up the rest of the discussion later.

minuteman wrote:    Let us discuss part of the posts now:   minuteman wrote:    Some cases were reported and some were confessed by the adulterer himself. The prophet s.a.w.s. turned his face to the otherside as he had not heard anything. But the sinner insisted and confessed again and again. So he was punished. There are two methods to determine adultery: 1) confession 2) four witnesses So it is not a mystery that there are examples of rajm being ordered after someone confesses. Please confirm from Quran that there were two methods to confirm adultery, especially the first one you have mentioned above.

You have an assumption buried in your request which must be argued. I am wearing kufs (leather socks), I just made wudu and I wiped over my kufs. If we follow your assumption, then it woudl demand that I show you where in the Quran does it allow me to wipe over my kufs and still have a valid wudu. Or if I take fish from a fishing boat (the fish died on the journey to shore), and then you demand that I show you where in the Quran does it say that the blood of fish is lawful.

Your assumption has limited the scope of prophetic authority, and your assumption has no place in Islam. The conditions for 4 witnesses has been well narrated and established, along with the criteria of a confession.

Quote: But please forget those cases if they happened before the revelation of the Surah Noor (24). You are going to have to prove your claim. Rajm was practiced without hesitation by the followers of the Prophet (saw) after the death of the Prophet (saw). There is no debate about that. Perhaps you know something more than the first three generations? Including the first three generations of people in Medina?  No, I do not know anything. You please provide the proof that Rajm was practiced after the prophet s.a.w.s. passed away. I have little knowledge of Hadith. So, you please help in this matter because this thing relates to Hadith only and not Quran. So, you may be having some definite proof of the practice. I only know that a few persons were stoned in the time of the prophet s.a.w.s.

What do you want as proof?

Quote:  The prophet was very well acting on the law of the Torah at that time. This is simply inaccurate. The Prophet (saw) did not act with the dictates of the Torah, he simply allowed Jews to use their own law, in accordance to Allah (swt). It is accurate as I learnt that the prophet s.a.w.s. did act on the previously revealed law (Of Torah, of course) until a new order came. That was the reason for the facing to Jeroshlem for the daily prayers. Otherwise you have to tell why the prophet s.a.w.s. was facing towards Jeroshlem for prayers for many years. Under what order, under what law??

You are mixing apples and oranges which is terribly obfuscating the thread.

1) You are still clinging to an unargued assumption that deals with prophetic authority. I am thinking that you discussion on rajm is premature, such as putting the cart before the horse. As long as you feel there is a limit on the scope of Prophethood, then these particular matters are too premature to debate about. What is your belief on the scope of Prophethood?

2) Facing Jerusalem is no more acting under the Torah as is rajm or the prohibition of eating pork. Since God is the author of the Torah and the Quran, it will be standard to find some things that are similar and some things that are difference. Given that the claim is that we have a single author for two books, within this context, similarity does not imply equivication. In other words, there is a prohibition on eating prok and marrying our aunts, but this does not mean we are following the Torah.

3) The order to face Jersusalem was from God, and is referred to in the Quran, and explained by the Prophet (saw). There is two revelations, that which is recited (Quran), and that which is not recited and it is knowledge given by God.

Quote: When the order for 100 lashes was revealed in chapter 24, then after that it was a different thing. Let us continue discussing it. Thanks. There is no dispute that Rajm was practiced as part of the sacred law well into the later years of the Prophet and it continued after him, and it was a non disputed form of punishment by the companions. If you have special guidance that the companions were not privy to, I would like to see it? I have answered this part above. I do not have any such knowledge. If I had then why shall I argue with you.  I hope there is no such thing. But please remember that you may provide the proof of mere adulterer being stoned after the life of the prophet s.a.w.s. And that there was no case of rape or killing or murder involved in that. I do not have any special guidance except what I see from the Quran and Sunnah and Hadith. Thanks. I will be helpful if you provide that stoning was practiced as a punishment for adultry.... Please do. We will take up the rest of the discussion later.

What do you want as proof?

 Andalus, you are asking:

 What do you want as proof?

 You know very well that the proof is the Quran or the practice of the prophet s.a.w.s. or the words of the prophet s.a.w.s. Now here in this case, there is nothing in the Quran about stoning an adulterer. So the matter rests with the practice and the words of the prophet s.a.w.s. Can you show that the practice was continued after the departure of the prophet s.a.w.s.??

 You are totally mistaken about many things. I believe in the Wahi Jali and Wahi Khafi. What do you want to teach me?? Please do.

 I asked you about providing some proof, some reference etc about the practice of stoning after the departure of our prophet s.a.w.s. that was asked in clear terms. And I had admitted my lack of knowledge in that respect. But still you are asking me, "What do you want?" I feel that you do not have anything to prove the practice of stoning an adulterer otherwise you would have posted it by now...

I believe in the powers and abilities of the prophet s.a.w.s. perhaps more than you, as all the ahle Sunnah do it. Now please come forward with your ideas.

Bismillah and Salaams,

Jazzak Allah Khayr Brother BMZ for your calm, relevant, correct post.

Here is something, and there is no need to attack or belittle because, yes, I am a Muslimah.  So be nice, Okay?

Some people like to follow exactly like a shadow in the feet of the Hadith and Sunnah and like shadows do not accept reason or logic very well.  Because their entire goal is to shadow.  Let them do so.  You are all free to do that in my humble opinion until it crosses a valid, poignant border which is the actual punishment of beating or nearly beating the life out of someone and of murdering them -- to borrow Brother BMZ's word -- by stoning.

Most good citizens of this planet recognize that both adultery and fornication are bad things to do, yet so many people commit these sins.  What is to be done in reality rather than in circular discussion?  Some people resort to murder as in Sister Angela's example.  Some people beat the life out of others as in some countries.  Some people say, what can we do, and do nothing, thus encouraging a proliferation of amoral, immoral behavior.  What can we do really?

Today we live in a world of fast communication where our public actions are readily seen by others on the other side of our planet.  We need to work together for solutions to these dilemnas.

Here is my proffer.  When I think of the sheikh's answer that Sister Angela posted, I see the inherent Mercy of Allah, SWT, showing itself in forgiveness to that man that fornicated.  I see a little bit of confusion could be drawn from that also.  Yes, he really does need to be checked by his doctor and stay away from marital relations with his dear wife until his health is cleared, which can take years with some diseases.  So he should have to use plastic covers to protect her for a long time.  And then she might think that SHE did something wrong and be hurt, and so this is much more complex of a situation than the sheikh's answer leads one to believe.   It's a big issue that needs furhter discussion among the sheikhs to decide what they really, really think is the best thing to do. 

The American attitude would be to tell her as it is her right to know about the infidelity and possible health consequences of having relations with her husband.  I ascribe to this myself because after all I am American and can't escape my cultural influences as we are all culturally bound. 

Islamically, this is a correct stance, guys really.  However, this idea of not publishing our sins is  a Mercy from Allah, The Most Just, and we need to think of this first and last of all.  Why would Allah, The All-Knowing tell us that it's okay and there's no punishment as long as no one knows of our sin?  This is really, really something to think about.  This should be the focus of Angela's query. 

And then why, with such a merciful solution, would the opposite of that be the public humiliation of flogging nearly to death or death in the case of many of us?  Come on guys!  You can figure this simple thing out.  I have.  It's easy.  It's simple.  It doesn't take a degree from Azhar to get it.

WHY?

minuteman wrote:    Andalus, you are asking:  What do you want as proof?  You know very well that the proof is the Quran or the practice of the prophet s.a.w.s. or the words of the prophet s.a.w.s.

Islam derives its rulings based upon the Quran, Sunnah, Ijma (consensus), Qiyaas (analogy). Though I am aware of this, I am also aware that you have access to ample resources on the net, and hadith abound that show rajm was the practice of the Prophet (saw). So knowing you have access to these narratives, I wanted to know specifically what you wanted as proof. Pasting all of the narratives might be a waste of time.

I will make this concise:

1) 'Ubadah bin As-Samit said, "WHen the revelation descended upon the Messenger of Allah (saw), it would affect him and his face would show signs of strain. One day, Allah sent down a revelation to him, and when the Messenger (saw) was relieved of its strain, he said, "Take from me: Allah has made some other way for them [this is in reference to Surah 4:15]. The married with the married, the unmarried with the unmarried. The married gets a hundred lashes and stoning to death, while the unmarried gets a hundred lashes then banishment for a year.""

(recorded by Imam Ahmed 5:317)

This is also narrated with slightly different wording:

".....take from me, take from me. Allah has made some other way for them: the unmarried gets a hundred lashes and banishment for a year, while the married gets a hundred lashes and stoning to death."

At-Tirmidhi stated this is hasan sahih and can be found in the Muslim, Abu Dawud, Tuhfat Al-Ahwadhi, Ibn Majah.

So we have a well authenticated statement from a companion about the Prophet (saw) which connects rajm to a verse in the Quran.

2) The topic of rajm is mass transmitted and considered mutawatir (this means so many people have narrated that it becomes nearly impossible for it to have been made up)

The Sahabah radhiall�hu 'anhum who narrate it from Rasulull�h sallall�hu alaihi wasallam are as follows:-
- �Umar radhiall�hu 'anhu narrates Rasulull�h sallall�hu alaihi wasallam making Rajm which is reported on the authority of Bukhari.
- �Uthmaan ibn �Affaan radhiall�hu 'anhu narrates that Rasulull�h sallall�hu alaihi wasallam made the blood of an adulterer and stoning him halaal. This is reported on the authority of Nasai and Darimi.
- �Ali radhiall�hu 'anhu narrates Rajm being the Sunnah of Rasulull�h sallall�hu alaihi wasallam narrated on the authority of Bukhari and Musnad Ahmad.
- �A�ishah radhiall�hu 'anha narrates the law of an adulterer is stoning which is narrated on the authority of Muslim, Abu Dawood and Hakim.
- �Abdullah ibn Mas�ood radhiall�hu 'anhu narrates the permissibility of the blood of an adulterer which is reported by Bukhari and Muslim.
- Abu Umamah ibn Sahl radhiall�hu 'anhu narrates the stoning of Ma�iz radhiall�hu 'anhu which is reported by �Abdur Razzaq.
- Anas ibnu Malik radhiall�hu 'anhu reports the permissibility of the blood of an adulterer which is reported on the authority of Tabrani as is mentioned in Majma�uz Zawaaid. He also reports Rasulull�h sallall�hu alaihi wasallam, Abu Bakr radhiall�hu 'anhu and �Umar radhiall�hu 'anhu stoning a person which is reported by Abu Ya�laa as is mentioned in Majma� and Matalib- ul-�Aliyah.
- Jabir ibn �Abdullah radhiall�hu 'anhu narrates the incident of Ma�iz which is reported by Bukhari. He also narrates the incident of the stoning of the Gamidi lady which is reported by Hakim.. He also reports the stoning of a person which is reported by Abu Dawood.
- �Abdullah ibn Abi Aufaa radhiall�hu 'anhu narrates Rasulull�h sallall�hu alaihi wasallam stoning someone which is reported by Bukhari and Muslim.
- Abu Hurairah radhiall�hu 'anhu narrates the incident of the stoning of Ma�iz radhiall�hu 'anhu which is reported by Bukhari and Muslim. He also narrates the incident of �Aseef which is reported by Bukhari and Muslim. He also reports the stoning of an unnamed person which is reported by Tabrani as is mentioned in Majma�.
- �Abdullah ibn �Abbas radhiall�hu 'anhu narrates the Khutbah of �Umar radhiall�hu 'anhu wherein he narrates about Rajm which is reported by Bukhari and Muslim.
- �Ubaadah ibn Samit radhiall�hu 'anhu narrates the stoning of an adulterer which is reported by Muslim.
- Jabir ibn Samurah reports the stoning of Ma�iz radhiall�hu 'anhu which is reported by Muslim.
- Abu Sa�eed Khudri radhiall�hu 'anhu reports the incident of Ma�iz radhiall�hu 'anhu which is reported by Muslim.
- �Imraan ibnu Husain radhiall�hu 'anhu reports the incident of the stoning of the Ghamidi lady which is reported by Muslim. He also narrates about Rasulull�h sallall�hu alaihi wasallam stoning a person which is reported by Ahmad.
- Buraidah ibnul Husaib radhiall�hu 'anhu reports the incident of Ma�iz radhiall�hu 'anhu which is reported by Muslim. He also reports the stoning of the Gamidi lady which is reported by Muslim.
- Nu�aim ibnu Hazzaal radhiall�hu 'anhu narrates the incident of the stoning of Ma�iz which is reported by Abu Dawood.
- Hazzaal Al-Aslami radhiall�hu 'anhu narrates the stoning of Ma�iz which is reported by Hakim.
- Nasr ibnu Dahr reports the incident of Ma�iz which is reported by Ahmad and Darimi.
- An unknown Sahabi also reports the incident of Ma�iz which is reported in Majma�uz-Zawaa�id and Musnad Ahmad.
- Abu Barzah radhiall�hu 'anhu narrates the incident of Ma�iz which is reported by Ahmad and Tabrani as is mentioned in Majama�uz Zawaaid.
- Al-Lahlaaj radhiall�hu 'anhu narrates the stoning of an unnamed person which is reported by Abu Dawood and Ahmad.
- Zaid ibnu Thabit radhiall�hu 'anhu narrates the stoning of an adulterer which is reported by Hakim.
- Ubaiyy ibnu Ka�b narrates the stoning of an adulterer which is reported by Baihaqi and Hakim.
- �Ajmaa radhiall�hu 'anha narrates the stoning of an adulterer which is reported by Hakim and Tabrani as is mentioned in Talkhees.

3) Sirah Salim bin Dhakwan is an early document that has been dated to 70 - 185 H. The document makes reference to a deviant group who opposed a ruling from the Sunnah (saw) of Prophet Muhammad (saw).

The document contains the passage, "they reject stoning when the Messenger of God did stone a man of Aslam and the sunnah was thereby established..".

Given that well known scholars such as Imam Malik ibn Anas who was of the fourth generation relayed the act of rajm from the people of Medina during his time such that the action was still valid, and with the above document, it would be an extremely weal position to say that rajm was not practiced by the first three generations (Imam Malik narrated from them!).

So here I have given three points which provide a strong bases for the acceptance of rajm.

Now here in this case, there is nothing in the Quran about stoning an adulterer. So the matter rests with the practice and the words of the prophet s.a.w.s. Can you show that the practice was continued after the departure of the prophet s.a.w.s.??  You are totally mistaken about many things. I believe in the Wahi Jali and Wahi Khafi. What do you want to teach me?? Please do.  I asked you about providing some proof, some reference etc about the practice of stoning after the departure of our prophet s.a.w.s. that was asked in clear terms. And I had admitted my lack of knowledge in that respect. But still you are asking me, "What do you want?" I feel that you do not have anything to prove the practice of stoning an adulterer otherwise you would have posted it by now... I believe in the powers and abilities of the prophet s.a.w.s. perhaps more than you, as all the ahle Sunnah do it. Now please come forward with your ideas.

 It would have been better if the exact narrations were posted, just a few of them. No need to make a flying reference to a lot of them. It is known that stoning of Muslims was also done in the time of the prophet s.a.w.s. But the proof is required that it was practiced after the departure of the prophet or after Surah Noor was revealed..

We remember a case of the son of Hazrat Umar who fornicated and he was punished with 100 lashes. Even though it may not be all true. But it is said that the son died after about 50 lashes. So Hazrat Umar ordered the rest of the 50 lashes to be hit on his grave.

I think I have a better view more from the discussion back and forth by the very followers of Islam.

rami,

I understand your arguement that one is not higher than the other.  I guess I still operate from the Mormon belief that Prophets don't always speak the word of God.  They are mortals and fallible, so when in doubt to a Prophet's words, you compare with the words of God.

There's a hadith I like about the Prophet telling a man he cannot beat his wife with anything bigger than a Miswak.... or was it three blades of grass.

I guess, you see my confusions.  Hadiths gathered from different incidents would lead me to believe that stoning is unislamic.  It goes against repentance, mercy and submission.  However, several hadiths prescrib lashing as almost an act of ritual more than a punishment.  Hitting with a Miswak wouldn't hurt....but it could be very embarrassing.

The Quran says to lock away an unrepentant woman.  How can you lock her away if shes dead???

I think in the end...it becomes a matter of prayer and understanding...and risk. 

Its risky to second guess the Lord.  God states many great things to man through all his revelations to all his Prophets.  Of these were 10 very clear statements give to Moses.  I've been pondering these as I've been recovering.  Scholars can only interpret what they have in front of them.  Hadiths are important from many historical and religious standpoints.  But sometimes they lack an all encompassing view of the situation. 

I know of a woman who cheated on her husband and became pregnant while he was in the hospital.  She was flagrant about it. 

I also know many young girls I counselled at the home for troubled youth.  They were not so much fornicators as victims of the older men who abused them.  These girls were used and pressured.  Instead of being beaten themselves, the men who did this to them should be punished and mercy to the victim.

I guess sometimes, its hard to show that someone who by black and white is a criminal is in reality more of a victim.

The lesson I got from the back and forth debate of those of you in this discussion is really there is no perfect answer.  A just man would way all the situations and determine what is appropriate.  Perhaps for the woman who was stoned by the Prophet... that was the appropriate punishment, whereas, with another it would be 100 lashes with a wet noodle.

Thanks.  As always, informative.

minuteman wrote:    It would have been better if the exact narrations were posted, just a few of them. No need to make a flying reference to a lot of them. It is known that stoning of Muslims was also done in the time of the prophet s.a.w.s.

It (the evidence of mass narration) was the point, not that rajm was used. The point was that rajm was an act that was followed and the proof is the nature of the hadiths (mutawatir).

But the proof is required that it was practiced after the departure of the prophet or after Surah Noor was revealed..

Surah An-Noor does not distinguish between a married adulterer  or a single forinicator, neither does Surah An-noor state that it abrogates the "some other way for them" in 4:15. Furthermore, the same narrative where we find the "some other way" also gives the punishement found in Surah An-noor but for non-married Muslims.

I am repasting the narrative (which has a sound chain).

'Ubadah bin As-Samit said, "WHen the revelation descended upon the Messenger of Allah (saw), it would affect him and his face would show signs of strain. One day, Allah sent down a revelation to him, and when the Messenger (saw) was relieved of its strain, he said, "Take from me: Allah has made some other way for them [this is in reference to Surah 4:15]. The married with the married, the unmarried with the unmarried. The married gets a hundred lashes and stoning to death, while the unmarried gets a hundred lashes then banishment for a year.""

(recorded by Imam Ahmed 5:317)

Keep in mind that the punishment found in Surah An-noor is mentioned in this hadith.

We remember a case of the son of Hazrat Umar who fornicated and he was punished with 100 lashes. Even though it may not be all true. But it is said that the son died after about 50 lashes. So Hazrat Umar ordered the rest of the 50 lashes to be hit on his grave.

 In the case of the son of Hazrat Umar, there is no stoning. So it does not go in your favor. But it shows that lashes were being applied.

Please note it. Now, I would ask you again as my knowledge of Hadith is very limited and I do not have any ready book at hand, please let me know if there is another Hadith from Bukhari or Muslim which states that Married person should get 100 lashes and then stoning to death.

 I will go back and look up all the Hadith that you have presented in your previous posts. Thanks.

I have noted that the above Hadith is given by you from Musnad Ahmed. Let us have some more of them please. Not just one Hadith. Thanks.

 I stated some principle that the matters of seriousness such as dealing with life and death cannot be decided only on the basis of Hadith. Proof for them must come from Quran. That is the opinion of the learned Ulema.

Keeping that in the mind, I do not see even a word about stoning an adulterer in the Quran. And it is a matter of life and death. So what I am to do?? The principle that I have stated is not from me. It is from a well known Muslim scholar of Indo/Pakistan. He says that the matters affecting life and death cannot be decided by the Hadith alone. Proof for them must come from the Quran.

I believe that he was right.

So many cases of stoning have been mentioned in the previous posts. I have read them, there is a reference (short) only and a long list. I am interested in knowing some more Hadith of Bukhari and Muslim with exact words please. If there is any Hadith of Bukhari and Muslim stating in the words of the prophet s.a.w.s. That a married fornicator must be put to death by stoning then it will make it all the more easy for to understand this subject.

Those Hadith should be related to the time of the prophet. I know that Rajam was practiced in the time of the prophet s.a.w.s. But I know thatthe prophet s.a.w.s. used to pray facing Jeroshlem too. There was no clear order for that but he used to do it. Similarly, there was no special order to stone a fornicator to death but he used to do it.

After he was told to face the Qiblah (Ka'abah), he never even one day faced the Jeroshlem for daily prayers. Similarly, after the order of 100 lashes for the adulteres in Suran Noor, we need to know the practice of the holy prophet s.a.w.s. as to what he did in the case of adulteres who were not involved in any other crime.

Also, if it is proved that stoning was in practice during the time of the great Khulafa, then that would be additional proof in favor of stoning. Please search and provide the material.

Bismillah irrahman irrahim

Assalamu alaykum

Here is the link to Bukhari, Muslim, Abudawud and Muwatta, http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/ - http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/  just read ahadith under Hudud and inshaAllah it will be enough for you. The reason i am not pasting them here is that they are so many in number that it would take forever so i know it is bit trouble but inshaAllah a bit of trouble for knowledge is ok.

But i am posting the traditions from time of Khulfae rashideen to show that rajm was a punishment after Sayyidina Muhammad sallallahu alyhi wassalam.

Book 38, Number 4385:

Book 38, Number 4443:

Book 41, Number 41.1.9:

Malik related to me from Yahya ibn Said from Sulayman ibn Yasar from Abu Waqid al-Laythi that a man came to Umar ibn al-Khattab while he was in ash-Sham . He mentioned to him that he had found a man with his wife Umar sent Abu Waqid al-Laythi to the wife to question her about that. He came to her while there were women around her and mentioned to her what her husband had mentioned to Umar ibn al-Khattab, and informed her that she would not be punished on his word and began to suggest to her by that, that she should retract. She refused to retract and held firm to confession. Umar gave the order and she was stoned.

Bismillah irrahman irrahim

Hi angela

Angela wrote: I guess, you see my confusions.  Hadiths gathered from different incidents would lead me to believe that stoning is unislamic.  It goes against repentance, mercy and submission.

I am sure you know we dont just take this world as our only hope of mercy. We have an overview of both worlds to see what is beneficial for us. As you have read many ahadith about mercy of our Lord and mercy shown by Sayyidina Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wassalam, you must have also read ahadith which mention that a repentant person who face earthly punishment will inshaAllah be admitted into paradise. There are ahadith which mention that if a person has not faced punishment in this world then its upto Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala to forgive him or punish him in hereafter. Majority of muslims would go for the option of recieving punishment in this world as it is part of asking for forgiveness as in this hadith,

Book 38, Number 4426:

Narrated Imran ibn Husayn:

A woman belonging to the tribe of Juhaynah (according to the version of Aban) came to the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and said that she had committed fornication and that she was pregnant. The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) called her guardian.

Then the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said to him: Be good to her, and when she bears a child, bring her (to me). When she gave birth to the child, he brought her (to him). The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) gave orders regarding her, and her clothes were tied to her. He then commanded regarding her and she was stoned to death. He commanded the people (to pray) and they prayed over her.

Thereupon Umar said: Are you praying over her, Apostle of Allah, when she has committed fornication?

He said: By Him in Whose hand my soul is, she has repented to such an extent that if it were divided among the seventy people of Medina, it would have been enough for them all. And what do you find better than the fact that she gave her life.

Aban did not say in his version: Then her clothes were tied to her.

Abu dawud

 

Angela wrote: However, several hadiths prescrib lashing as almost an act of ritual more than a punishment.  Hitting with a Miswak wouldn't hurt....but it could be very embarrassing.

There are only one or two ahadith and that is regarding a person who was so sick that companions told Sayyidina Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wassalam when asked to bring the person that if he is moved all of his stature will collapse, So Sayyidina Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wassalam told them to hit him once with hundered straws. It is not embarrassing, it is mercy and hope that even though the punishment is by name but He will be counted as the ones who have received their punishment in this world.

 

Angela wrote: The Quran says to lock away an unrepentant woman.  How can you lock her away if shes dead???

Those ayaat are Makkan and it was the time when rule was not of islam, when muslims had their own community and rule of law in Medina, the punishmen was Stoning for married and lashes for unmarried.

 

Angela wrote: Hadiths are important from many historical and religious standpoints.  But sometimes they lack an all encompassing view of the situation.

We dont believe that, we believe Prophets alyhimussalaam are made pure to rid them of any mistakes of human nature. Our Prophet sallallahu alayhi wassalam was asked as to why he turned away from a blind person to give more attention to some chiefs. So if a such minute thing was corrected, major thing as stoning could not have just be let by. 

 

Angela wrote: I also know many young girls I counselled at the home for troubled youth.  They were not so much fornicators as victims of the older men who abused them.  These girls were used and pressured.  Instead of being beaten themselves, the men who did this to them should be punished and mercy to the victim.

Islam clearly differentiates between a rape and adultery/fornication. Even if the women cant bring the proof, the medical exam these day could give proof for her. Even in the older days her physical examination was taken as a proof and even if man was set free for lack of evidence against him, there is no punishment for her.

 

Angela wrote: The lesson I got from the back and forth debate of those of you in this discussion is really there is no perfect answer.  A just man would way all the situations and determine what is appropriate.  Perhaps for the woman who was stoned by the Prophet... that was the appropriate punishment, whereas, with another it would be 100 lashes with a wet noodle.

Yeah a God fearing just muslim judge will always follow Holy Qur'an and Sunnah and the examples of early generations. No one here can deny that their practice was stoning for married women/men.

Wassalam

-------------
Say: (O Muhammad) If you love Allah, then follow me, Allah will love you and forgive you your faults, and Allah is Forgiving, MercifuL

minuteman wrote:    In the case of the son of Hazrat Umar, there is no stoning. So it does not go in your favor. But it shows that lashes were being applied.

The story you are referring to, to the best of my knowledge, was for either for his son being drunk, or forinicating.  Either way, the paunishment was not for adultery. So I am not sure how that does not work in my favor, or how it works in your favor?

Please note it. Now, I would ask you again as my knowledge of Hadith is very limited and I do not have any ready book at hand, please let me know if there is another Hadith from Bukhari or Muslim which states that Married person should get 100 lashes and then stoning to death.  I will go back and look up all the Hadith that you have presented in your previous posts. Thanks. I have noted that the above Hadith is given by you from Musnad Ahmed. Let us have some more of them please. Not just one Hadith. Thanks.

Sister Fatima as provided seom narrations. I am not sure how many you want pasted? Furthermore, Musnad Ahmed is extremely reliable and "autheticated", and the example provides evidence for my argument.

regards

minuteman wrote:    I stated some principle that the matters of seriousness such as dealing with life and death cannot be decided only on the basis of Hadith. Proof for them must come from Quran. That is the opinion of the learned Ulema.

I am not aware of this "mysterious" principle in the science of usul al fiqh. In fact, my biggest question is that if this "principle" is such a strongly guiding axion of the shairah, why it has remained a mystery to the greatest minds of the past 10 centuries? Rajm has been a known practice of the sunnah and has not been questioned. I would noy question the ulema, but I would question an unknown self proclaimed scholar who asserts an unknown and mysterious axiom that you are now invoking.

And I am not sure which learned ulema you are speaking of sense rajm is agreed upon with a consensus.

Keeping that in the mind, I do not see even a word about stoning an adulterer in the Quran. And it is a matter of life and death. So what I am to do??

Either the prophet (saw) was lying, or his companions were lying, and the third generation was teaching nonsense, if we follow your line of reasoning.

What I do is follow the most reasonable path that I can find the most "confidence" in: The Quran, Sunnah, ijma, qiyas. 

The principle that I have stated is not from me. It is from a well known Muslim scholar of Indo/Pakistan. He says that the matters affecting life and death cannot be decided by the Hadith alone. Proof for them must come from the Quran. I believe that he was right.

It is unfortunate that this famous and well known scholar did not bless the lives of Imam Nawawi, Imam Al Ghazali, the Sahaba, and the tabi'in, and thier followers, and Imam Abu Hanifa, and Imam Malik, and Imam Shafi, and Imam Ahmed, and Imam Hajar Asqalani, Imam Muslim, Imam Al Bukhari, etc, etc, etc. My question now is why didn't God bless these great men with the knowledge of your sheikh.

It seems you and your sheikh are very blessed.

The Ummah has its share of self made experts who have claims of novelty. Novelty is what it is.

So many cases of stoning have been mentioned in the previous posts. I have read them, there is a reference (short) only and a long list. I am interested in knowing some more Hadith of Bukhari and Muslim with exact words please. If there is any Hadith of Bukhari and Muslim stating in the words of the prophet s.a.w.s. That a married fornicator must be put to death by stoning then it will make it all the more eas]y for to understand this subject.

Sister Fatima posted plenty, and there are plenty more that are left to be posted.

Those Hadith should be related to the time of the prophet. I know that Rajam was practiced in the time of the prophet s.a.w.s. But I know thatthe prophet s.a.w.s. used to pray facing Jeroshlem too. There was no clear order for that but he used to do it. Similarly, there was no special order to stone a fornicator to death but he used to do it.

You are mixing apples and oranges. You repeat this comparison, "facing Jerusalem then facing Mecca", with "rajm", and there is nothing that connects these two issues. I am not sure how else to tell you, logically, they are simply not related. I am not sure what notion you have concocted in your mind, but they have nothing in common.

1) Allah commanded the Muslims to face Mecca after commanding them to face Jerusalem for a period of time, and this is not related, not even as far as an analogy, to the issue of rajm.

2) You saying that there was no clear order for the prophet (saw) to do it is simply rubbish. Allah ordered him to do it. That is clear enough.

After he was told to face the Qiblah (Ka'abah), he never even one day faced the Jeroshlem for daily prayers. Similarly, after the order of 100 lashes for the adulteres in Suran Noor, we need to know the practice of the holy prophet s.a.w.s. as to what he did in the case of adulteres who were not involved in any other crime.

You say "similarly", but I have yet to find any major attributes that the two occurences have in common? As far as I can see, they have nothing in common as far as the intention of this thread. The kibla was fixed, so what? Why would anyone go against the command of God?

I gave you a hadith that demonstrated knowledge of the 100 lashes for an unmarried guilty person, while demonstrating knowledge of stoning for a married person.

You keep wanting to see "more hadiths", I am not sure what you are looking for.

Also, if it is proved that stoning was in practice during the time of the great Khulafa, then that would be additional proof in favor of stoning. Please search and provide the material.

Sister Fatima gave you examples.

What it comes down to is this:

1) The prophet (saw) practiced it.

2) The Sahaba practiced it

3) The Tabi'in practiced it

4) their followers practiced it

If you do not trust this line, then you must specify who we do not trust, who was wrong, and have ample evidence besides speculation to support doubt.

Reply to Andalus: 

I cannot comment on all your points. Briefly, sis fatima has provided the material. I am looking into it. that Scholar (even though not my favored person) is a well known Hanafi scholar of Indo Pakistan. perhaps he also believed in the stoning too. I believe he did. i am not hiding anything. But it was his own quoted principle that matters of life and death cannot be left to the Hadith alone. Proof for them must come from the Quran. Yet he believed in the stoning of the adulteres.

 Anyhow, i wrote about the Qiblah. There is no order in the Quran about facing the Jeroshlem. What do you say? But there is order to face Ka'abah. Prophet s.a.w.s. must have been acting on some order or guidance before the verse for change of Qiblah had been revealed. What was that guidance? Where is that guidance.

The order for stoning an adulterer is not in the Quran. The prophet s.a.w.s. was doing it. Why and how?? You do not see any similarity in these two commands but I do.

I admitted that if stoning was in practice after the passing away of the prophet s.a.w.s. then it will make the matter easy to believe. I am looking into the material provided by sis Fatima. I will let you know my views in due course.

I would like to know your remarks about the killing of an apostate too. What is your opinion about that. Because that is also a serious matter involving life and death. Thanks. Keep thinking.

minuteman wrote:   Reply to Andalus:  I cannot comment on all your points. Briefly, sis fatima has provided the material. I am looking into it. that Scholar (even though not my favored person) is a well known Hanafi scholar of Indo Pakistan. perhaps he also believed in the stoning too. I believe he did. i am not hiding anything. But it was his own quoted principle that matters of life and death cannot be left to the Hadith alone. Proof for them must come from the Quran. Yet he believed in the stoning of the adulteres.

The act of rajm is related through mass transmission. This is enough to validate the act.

Anyhow, i wrote about the Qiblah. There is no order in the Quran about facing the Jeroshlem. What do you say? But there is order to face Ka'abah. Prophet s.a.w.s. must have been acting on some order or guidance before the verse for change of Qiblah had been revealed. What was that guidance? Where is that guidance.

Allah was the only guidance of Prophet Muhammad (saw). There are two forms of revelation, the Quran is the recited "wahy", there is also an unrecited wahy.

The order for stoning an adulterer is not in the Quran. The prophet s.a.w.s. was doing it. Why and how?? You do not see any similarity in these two commands but I do.

You are assuming that the Quran is the only form of valid wahy. The Prophet (saw) was also guided through unrecited wahy. You are almost implying that the prophet (saw) made an error?

I admitted that if stoning was in practice after the passing away of the prophet s.a.w.s. then it will make the matter easy to believe. I am looking into the material provided by sis Fatima. I will let you know my views in due course. I would like to know your remarks about the killing of an apostate too. What is your opinion about that. Because that is also a serious matter involving life and death. Thanks. Keep thinking.

Under certain conditions, the blood of an apostate may be taken as the blood of an adulterer.

Keep in mind that it is extremely difficult to convict someone of these crimes. The condition for both is confession, and four witnesses is a second possible condition for adultery.

regards 

The act of rajm is related through mass transmission. This is enough to validate the act.

Mass transmission means person toperson like other matters of Sunnah??? What do you want to teach here??

Allah was the only guidance of Prophet Muhammad (saw). There are two forms of revelation, the Quran is the recited "wahy", there is also an unrecited wahy.

That is a lose reply. Every one knows that Allah was the guide. That is what I have been telling you that the two cases are similar. In both cases, there must be some Wahi Khafi involved. But you did not agree.

You are assuming that the Quran is the only form of valid wahy. The Prophet (saw) was also guided through unrecited wahy. You are almost implying that the prophet (saw) made an error?

 That is bad reply. Ann accusation. I had already replied to you in one of my posts that I do believe in the unrecited Wahi (Wahi Khafi). So why are you accusing me again for that. An apology may be due now.

Under certain conditions, the blood of an apostate may be taken as the blood of an adulterer.

Keep in mind that it is extremely difficult to convict someone of these crimes. The condition for both is confession, and four witnesses is a second possible condition for adultery.

regards 

I do not want the blood of an apostate under certain conditions. Please reply properly whether any one who changes his religion (He may be a Muslim or a Jew or a Hindu), will he be killed according to the Islamic law???

Also I would like to know from you about the confession business from the Quran. I know that in a Hadith there a case of some one stoned due to his own confession, in the time of the Holy prophet s.a.w.s. But you want to make it a permanent law. Wedo not know what were the circumstances of thattime. Was it done before the revelation of Surah Noor? etc. I am not satisfied with your approach.

I am going to scrutinise the cases presented by Sis Fatima and then I will reply again. Until then you hold your horses please. If you like then try to check up about the important advice of the scholar who said that matters affecting life and death cannot be left to the Hadith only. Proof for them should come from Quran.

Wassalam....

minuteman wrote:     The act of rajm is related through mass transmission. This is enough to validate the act. Mass transmission means person toperson like other matters of Sunnah??? What do you want to teach here??

No, something mass transmitted meaning "mutawatir", which means so many people narrated an event that it becomes impossible for the event to be fabricated. Not all hadith are mutawatir. That is simply basic science of hadith.

Quote:  Anyhow, i wrote about the Qiblah. There is no order in the Quran about facing the Jeroshlem. What do you say? But there is order to face Ka'abah. Prophet s.a.w.s. must have been acting on some order or guidance before the verse for change of Qiblah had been revealed. What was that guidance? Where is that guidance. Allah was the only guidance of Prophet Muhammad (saw). There are two forms of revelation, the Quran is the recited "wahy", there is also an unrecited wahy. That is a lose reply. Every one knows that Allah was the guide. That is what I have been telling you that the two cases are similar. In both cases, there must be some Wahi Khafi involved. But you did not agree.

I did not agree that the kibla event was relevant to the conext of the thread pertaining to rajm.

There is nothing that indicates that Surah An-noor dealt with a married individual.

You are assuming that the Quran is the only form of valid wahy. The Prophet (saw) was also guided through unrecited wahy. You are almost implying that the prophet (saw) made an error?  That is bad reply. Ann accusation. I had already replied to you in one of my posts that I do believe in the unrecited Wahi (Wahi Khafi). So why are you accusing me again for that. An apology may be due now.

Perhaps, but you need to clarify some of your statements. So if it is an apology you want, then you have it, I am sorry, but I ask you to be more clear and fully explain your statements.

So it is not a bad reply, the problem was that your intention was not clear, nor was your point.

Quote: I admitted that if stoning was in practice after the passing away of the prophet s.a.w.s. then it will make the matter easy to believe. I am looking into the material provided by sis Fatima. I will let you know my views in due course. I would like to know your remarks about the killing of an apostate too. What is your opinion about that. Because that is also a serious matter involving life and death. Thanks. Keep thinking.   Under certain conditions, the blood of an apostate may be taken as the blood of an adulterer. Keep in mind that it is extremely difficult to convict someone of these crimes. The condition for both is confession, and four witnesses is a second possible condition for adultery. regards  I do not want the blood of an apostate under certain conditions. Please reply properly whether any one who changes his religion (He may be a Muslim or a Jew or a Hindu), will he be killed according to the Islamic law???

You are asking a "complex question". Such a question has an unproven or unargued assumption that is buried in the premise of the the question. Your question was be like: Does the hand of the thief become chopped off or not, I do not want certain conditions, I want a proper answer. The apostate can be executed under certain conditions. I believe this, it is a part of the sacred law, and there are "conditions" that must be met.

Also I would like to know from you about the confession business from the Quran. I know that in a Hadith there a case of some one stoned due to his own confession, in the time of the Holy prophet s.a.w.s. But you want to make it a permanent law. Wedo not know what were the circumstances of thattime. Was it done before the revelation of Surah Noor? etc. I am not satisfied with your approach.

You keep coming back to "was it before surah An-noor".

1) Surah An-Noor does not indicate, with any explicit statement, that married people are covered.

2) I gave you a strong hadith that tells us that the Prophet (saw) knew about the 100 lashes for an unmarried person, along side the punishment for a married beliver.

3) I can think of at least three incidents from the top of my head where a confession was used. Here is one that II happen to have before me:

Narrated Abu Huraira and Zaid bin Khalid Al-Juhani:
A Bedouin came to Allah's messenger and said, "O Allah's Messenger! I ask you by Allah to judge my case according to Allah's Laws". His opponent, who was more learned than he, said, "Yes, judge between us according to Allah's Laws, and allow me to speak." Allah's Messenger said, "Speak." He said, "My son was working as a labourer for this man and he committed illegal sexual intercourse with his wife. The people told me that it was obligatory that my son should be stoned to death, so in lieu of that I ransomed my son by paying one hundred sheep and a slave-girl. Then I asked the religious scholars about it. They informed me that my son must be lashed one hundred times, and be exiled for one year, and the wife of this (man) must be stoned to death." Allah's Messenger said, "By Him in whose hands my soul is, I shall judge between you according to Allah's Laws. The slave-girl and the sheep are to be returned to you, your son is to receive a hundred lashes and be exiled for one year. You, Unais go to the wife of this man and if she confesses her guilt, stone her to death." Unais went to the woman next morning and she confessed. Allah's Messenger ordered that she be stoned to death. (Bukhari)

Surah An-noor is irrelevant to the notion of confession.

I am going to scrutinise the cases presented by Sis Fatima and then I will reply again. Until then you hold your horses please. If you like then try to check up about the important advice of the scholar who said that matters affecting life and death cannot be left to the Hadith only. Proof for them should come from Quran. Wassalam....

  Thanks for your post. I may use my sense as much as I have. You have experienced some of it. I cannot believe that verse of Surah Noor is about unmarried fornicator. It says "Zani" and "Zaniah". You tell me the meaning of the two words.

 To me it means those who had intercourse without being husband and wife, without being married with each other. That is surely the meaning of Zani. And I believe that there is no secret meaning in the verse because Allah has said that these are the very clear well explained (Bayyan) orders. You say that they are not Bayyan. They have secret meanings. I don't believe that.

The next thing of trouble to you is that there no word in the Quran about stoning an adulterer to death. But you are insisting that the adulterer must be stoned to death.

Next, about the apostate, you have not replied fully. I know there are conditions for killing the apostate if the war is going on. Or if the the person who recanted, he may have killed some one after recanting...

I cannot see any other condition for the killing of an apostate. But surely you may be knowing a few more. So let us have them. Thanks.

My belief aboutWahi Khafi is definite, no doubt. You cannot deny it at all. If I don't believe that the adulterer should be stoned, that is another matter. It is not necessary to make use of Wahi Khafi for that matter. There are many other points which prove the Wahi Khafi. I do not want to use it for the stoning.

minuteman wrote:     Thanks for your post. I may use my sense as much as I have. You have experienced some of it. I cannot believe that verse of Surah Noor is about unmarried fornicator. It says "Zani" and "Zaniah". You tell me the meaning of the two words.

Someone who commits an illiegal sexual act. Not necessarily a married person, and an unmarried person, but a married or unmarried person, which means it (the word) is ambiguous and not "particularized". So my statement is correct. It can be an unmarried believer, and the hadith by prophet Muhammad (saw) backs my claim. I do not use my personal feelings and whims to make personal ijtihad in matters of faith or exegesis.

To me it means those who had intercourse without being husband and wife, without being married with each other. That is surely the meaning of Zani. And I believe that there is no secret meaning in the verse because Allah has said that these are the very clear well explained (Bayyan) orders. You say that they are not Bayyan. They have secret meanings. I don't believe that.

I have never declared a secret meaning, I simply used logical deduction, and evidence from the prophet (saw) himself. It has nothing to do with secrecy, but it has everything to do with reasoning and the ijtihad of mujtahids.

The next thing of trouble to you is that there no word in the Quran about stoning an adulterer to death. But you are insisting that the adulterer must be stoned to death.

It is not I who insists, it is the prophet Muhammad (saw), and the first three generations. I am sorry that you will not accept this.

Next, about the apostate, you have not replied fully. I know there are conditions for killing the apostate if the war is going on. Or if the the person who recanted, he may have killed some one after recanting... I cannot see any other condition for the killing of an apostate. But surely you may be knowing a few more. So let us have them. Thanks.

That is irrelevant to the thread and off topic. If you wish to discuss apostacy, then please, by all means I invite you to start a thread on it. If you start a thread, state your purpose and intention, not just a line that asks me to post what I know. My time is precious and I could potentially spend a great deal of time just trying to satisfy such an open ended request.

My belief aboutWahi Khafi is definite, no doubt. You cannot deny it at all. If I don't believe that the adulterer should be stoned, that is another matter. It is not necessary to make use of Wahi Khafi for that matter. There are many other points which prove the Wahi Khafi. I do not want to use it for the stoning.

If you do not believe an adulterer should be stoned, then either the prophet was wrong, the first three generation was wrong? If you believe in unrecited revelation, then either there is a mistake with the prophet (saw), or the first three generations, or both, or you are simply following your personal whims about which unrecited revelation to follow.

Rajm is not in the quran, but it is a part of the sunnah, mass transmitted, from the prophet (saw) of God himself, on orders from God Himself. If you select wahy based upon nothing more than mere feelings, then you have no solid, raitonal bases for your choice, but I do respect you for your opinion.  

regards

Dear Andalus: My remarks are in blue.

If you do not believe an adulterer should be stoned, then either the prophet was wrong, the first three generation was wrong? If you believe in unrecited revelation, then either there is a mistake with the prophet (saw), or the first three generations, or both, or you are simply following your personal whims about which unrecited revelation to follow.

I am sorry. I do not believe that the prophet s.a.w.s. was wrong. Or his Khalifas were wrong. I believe in the unrecited revelation. But I do not want to use the unrecited revealtion to prove something extra-ordinary against the words of the Quran, against the recited Wahi. That is my final reply to you now.

If I follow your way then you may use the unrecited Wahi to create havoc. There will be no limit. There is some kind of Mulla Islam that I do not believe at all. That is Abrogation of verses of the Quran, and forbidding the even peaceful propagation of the religion to non Muslims in the Muslim countries and so many other things. I do not believe that.

After all those things are also being supported by some kinds of Hadith. Are they not?? So where will I end up??

Rajm is not in the quran, but it is a part of the sunnah, mass transmitted, from the prophet (saw) of God himself, on orders from God Himself. If you select wahy based upon nothing more than mere feelings, then you have no solid, raitonal bases for your choice, but I do respect you for your opinion.

 Thanks. You have admitted that Rajm is not in the Quran. Yet you want to do it. That is not understood. Killing some one is not an ordinary matter. That mass transmission is not like Salat etc. And salat is prescribed in the Quran itself. I told you that if you use the unrecited Wahi then you will be killing the apostates. I do not support that too.

The proof of unrecited Wahi is in the Quran and Hadith. But I request that you do not use that to kill any one please. I had told you a principle before, perhaps I did not state it completely. Now I remember it much better. I request that you present that to some learned person without any attachments and ask if ot was true or not. That would be better.

I state that principle again:

The serious matters such as of life and death and Halaal and Haraam cannot be decided on the basis of Hadith only. Proof for them should come from the Quran.

You may please checkit up from some one. I am satisfied that I have explained things in all honesty. Wassalam.

minuteman wrote:     Dear Andalus: My remarks are in blue. If you do not believe an adulterer should be stoned, then either the prophet was wrong, the first three generation was wrong? If you believe in unrecited revelation, then either there is a mistake with the prophet (saw), or the first three generations, or both, or you are simply following your personal whims about which unrecited revelation to follow. I am sorry. I do not believe that the prophet s.a.w.s. was wrong. Or his Khalifas were wrong. I believe in the unrecited revelation. But I do not want to use the unrecited revealtion to prove something extra-ordinary against the words of the Quran, against the recited Wahi. That is my final reply to you now.

Assalam Aleikum

But you have failed to show me where in the Quran the issue of rajm conflicts? You are asserting that in this case, unrecited wahy is in conflict with the recited wahy? You have not shown where this conflict is in the recited wahy?

If I follow your way then you may use the unrecited Wahi to create havoc. There will be no limit.

And yet my way is that of the ulema, for 1200 years, and yet I find no "havoc". How do you explain that my way is simply that of the ulema, and after 1200 years, no "havoc" has been created.

There is some kind of Mulla Islam that I do not believe at all. That is Abrogation of verses of the Quran, and forbidding the even peaceful propagation of the religion to non Muslims in the Muslim countries and so many other things. I do not believe that.

I am not sure I follow you?

After all those things are also being supported by some kinds of Hadith. Are they not?? So where will I end up??

You will have to clearify your point? I do not follow.

Rajm is not in the quran, but it is a part of the sunnah, mass transmitted, from the prophet (saw) of God himself, on orders from God Himself. If you select wahy based upon nothing more than mere feelings, then you have no solid, raitonal bases for your choice, but I do respect you for your opinion.  Thanks. You have admitted that Rajm is not in the Quran.

non sequitur. I never stated that it was, and not being their does not change my point or argument or the argument of the greatest ulema who have ever lived.

Yet you want to do it. That is not understood. Killing some one is not an ordinary matter. That mass transmission is not like Salat etc. And salat is prescribed in the Quran itself. I told you that if you use the unrecited Wahi then you will be killing the apostates. I do not support that too.

Not only do I want to do it, but my view is in agreement with the sahaba, the tabi'in, their followers, and the greatest minds that have ever lived. It seems my friend, that my view has a lot more weight.

I am not sure where you have learned about the science of fiqh, but a mutawatir ahadith can, indeed, be soley used to derive a hadd offense punishment. That is established by the majority of jurists. If you disagree, then you have used your own ijtihad to go against 1200 years of the greatest scholarship.  

The proof of unrecited Wahi is in the Quran and Hadith. But I request that you do not use that to kill any one please. I had told you a principle before, perhaps I did not state it completely.

You have stated it, the problem is that no such axion exists as far as a strong opinion amongst the ulema concerning a mutawatir ahadith establishing a hadd punishment. You can state someminor opinion untill judgement day, but it still does not mean that the principle exists such that a mutawatir ahadith cannot establish a hadd. I am talking about the four schools of fiqh, a majority of mujtahids that do not follow your personal axiom. I am sorry, I am going with the specialists of fiqh. 

Now I remember it much better. I request that you present that to some learned person without any attachments and ask if ot was true or not. That would be better.

Funny, I just happen to have a book of tafsir in front of me by a well known Hanafi scholar of Pakistan, and he states that a hadd can be established by a mutawatir ahadith, as do the other schools of fiqh. According to you, the unanimous ruling by the four schools of fiqh is wrong and so are the scholars who do not follow your axiom to the extant that you have?

I state that principle again: The serious matters such as of life and death and Halaal and Haraam cannot be decided on the basis of Hadith only. Proof for them should come from the Quran.

You must inform the great ulema of their dubious error!

You may please checkit up from some one. I am satisfied that I have explained things in all honesty. Wassalam.

Assalamu Alaikum,

minuteman,

I was forced to move this thread to intrafaith inspite of my earlier message not to keep discussing on those lines in this section.

Furthermore, please avoid using bold fonts, and comply with guidelines.

Peace

Andalus wrote: minuteman wrote: Dear Andalus: My remarks are in blue. If you do not believe an adulterer should be stoned, then either the prophet was wrong, the first three generation was wrong? If you believe in unrecited revelation, then either there is a mistake with the prophet (saw), or the first three generations, or both, or you are simply following your personal whims about which unrecited revelation to follow. I am sorry. I do not believe that the prophet s.a.w.s. was wrong. Or his Khalifas were wrong. I believe in the unrecited revelation. But I do not want to use the unrecited revealtion to prove something extra-ordinary against the words of the Quran, against the recited Wahi. That is my final reply to you now. Assalam Aleikum But you have failed to show me where in the Quran the issue of rajm conflicts? You are asserting that in this case, unrecited wahy is in conflict with the recited wahy? You have not shown where this conflict is in the recited wahy? Yes, The recited Wahi says that the adulterer and the adultress be both punished with 100 lashes. But the unrecited Wahi is changing this to stoning of the married adultreres.

                                                                                                                         

Incorrect, you are attempting to bury your opinion into an exegesis of the passage. The verse does not say adulterer AND adulteress. It simply says a �fornicator�, which is �ambiguous� and does not specify if the fornicator is married or not. You have also made another false assertion. Please show me which ahadith, and at what point in the hadith, a conflict occurs? It seems you enjoy finding novelty, because I have yet to see a single hadith which conflicts with Surah An-noor. The hadith �particularizes� fornicator and to what class of fornicators receive lashes. Your conclusion is simply dubious and unproven, and without merit. 

Also, please try to use a better method of formatting these discussions. It is becoming more difficult for me to format for you and for me. The color coding scheme you are trying to use only works for a few initial posts.

minuteman wrote: andalus wrote: minuteman wrote: If I follow your way then you may use the unrecited Wahi to create havoc. There will be no limit. And yet my way is that of the ulema, for 1200 years, and yet I find no "havoc". How do you explain that my way is simply that of the ulema, and after 1200 years, no "havoc" has been created. It may be according to Ulema but not according to Quran. You know what the great Ulema are doing today. They had till recently been fighting and calling each other Kaafirs. There is a hell of difference in opinion among Brelvi and deobandi Ulema and also see the Wahhabi Ulema. There is much difference. Had they been guided the ummah may not have suffered so badly.

I now suspect you of rhetorical sophistry friend. We should try and remain true to this discussion and seek the truth, not try to obfuscate the truth to uphold our opinions.

1) Your statement, �It may be according to Ulema but not according to Quran.�, is fallacious as you are implying that

a) the Ulema do not use the Quran

b) that the science of and principles of fiqh are bound only to the Quran

c) That there is no other legislative sources for the shariah except the quran

I ask you to please prove your assertions before trying to bury them in your rhetoric.

2) Your statement, �You know what the great Ulema are doing today. They had till recently been fighting and calling each other Kaafirs.�, is also problematic as it moves into the realm of irrelevancy. My argument for rajm does not require that every member of the ulema get along and have been the best of brothers, nor does the argument for rajm by the great ulema depend on how courteous the members are to one another. You have just presented me with a logical fallacy called a strawman.

3) You followed up with something else fallacious, �There is a hell of difference in opinion among Brelvi and deobandi Ulema and also see the Wahhabi Ulema. There is much difference. Had they been guided the ummah may not have suffered so badly.�, this simply adds to the strawman you have just introduced. The dispute between the Brelvi and deobandi is irrelevant, and you are trying to generalize from a particular that has no outcome on my argument. In logic it is called a non-sequitur, meaning �does not follow�. The argument between these two groups started from a theological dispute in kalam, not about rajm. So their dispute does not invalidate the ulemas agreement on rajm, or the sound argument behind using rajm. Even if (entertaining a thought) it were, this is one small group that would count as a small minority, and those who diverge from using rajm have simply followed their own whims given the amount of evidence and soundness of the argument for its use.

minuteman wrote: andalus wrote:   minuteman wrote: There is some kind of Mulla Islam that I do not believe at all. That is Abrogation of verses of the Quran, and forbidding the even peaceful propagation of the religion to non Muslims in the Muslim countries and so many other things. I do not believe that. I am not sure I follow you? Please try to understand the interpretations of the uLema. Do you not see that many of them believe that some verses of the Quran are abrogated or superceded. You should be aware of that. I personally met some of them and they admitted that Jews and christians and Hindus were not allowed topreach anything in a muslim country. I don't see any Muslim country though. But the order is there that no one should preach there. I heard Zakir Naik myself telling that.

What I see brother is your use of the typical excuses used by so called �modern� Muslims to feel comfortable when they follow their own whims and decide to give self ijtihad without having any credible background to do so, and disagree with the uleman based upon nothing more than mere opinion.

1)    There is abrogation in the Quran. That is a sound argument, though this is another strawman and irrelevant to my argument.

2)    The issue of proselytizing in a Muslim country is also irrelevant and has no outcome on this topic or my argument, although I agree and would not allow a missionary from any religion to enter my home to access my family with propaganda, and any good Caliph would treat his country as I treat my own home.

If you do not want to make taqlid on scholars, then do what you like, but do not try and use slanderous statements about the ulema to justify your views. I find it incredible that no one would think about not making taqlid in matters of medicine, but in matters of the hear after, of eternity, people will place their own whims over sound advice from experts in their fields. I know no one who would take advice about a problem with their brain from someone who simply had a collection of books about neuroscience, but everyone is a scholar of the deen.

minuteman wrote: So all these things combined together makes a lot of mess in the religion business. I cannot see any suitable place to trust. Most of the Ulema are political people. That is another problem.

Brother, I am very familiar with this approach you are trying to use to justify making your own ijtihad. It is an irrational and baseless reason to follow your own whims, though I suppose it makes you feel comfortable. It is the common howler by so called �modern� Muslims who have become convinced by the past colonial powers that their deen has problems. Under the guidance of the ulema that you are now trying to trash with fallacious arguments, great civilizations were formed.

minuteman wrote: andalus wrote: minuteman wrote: After all those things are also being supported by some kinds of Hadith. Are they not?? So where will I end up?? You will have to clearify your point? I do not follow. It is same as above remarks. The abrogation of the Quranic verses and the killing of the apostates and the forbidding of the peaceful preachings of other religions, all these things must have some support from the different Ahadith. What will you do about them?

Nothing, they are nothing but an irrelevant distraction to the topic at hand. If you wish to discuss abrogation and allowing missionaries full access to your society, then start separate threads on them. If you do not trust the sunnah, then discuss the topic �the scope of the sunnah�. For now, we are talking about rajm.

minuteman wrote: andalus wrote: minuteman wrote: andalus wrote: Rajm is not in the quran, but it is a part of the sunnah, mass transmitted, from the prophet (saw) of God himself, on orders from God Himself. If you select wahy based upon nothing more than mere feelings, then you have no solid, raitonal bases for your choice, but I do respect you for your opinion.  Thanks. You have admitted that Rajm is not in the Quran. non sequitur. I never stated that it was, and not being their does not change my point or argument or the argument of the greatest ulema who have ever lived. You had written. Rajam is not in the Quran. You have admitted that . It is good. Thanks. I am replying to you. But I do not follow the Hadith in the matter of killings if not advised by the Quran. I will read your hadith which are mentioned in your post for a few days to understand the matter.

If you follow the hadith in other matters, but not in matters of hadd, then you must produce a sound argument as to why. You trust the hadith with one thing, but throw it out for another. Your opinion goes against what Umar (ra) himself taught and practiced.

minuteman wrote: I hope there will be some special note proving that a hadith Mutawater is as good as a verse of the Quran. Thatis your duty to show your principle. How will you prove that. Is there a Hadith which says that a Hadith mutawater is as good as a verse of the Quran. I believe not. You should show it.

You have just produced the fallacy of a non sequitur again. The use of a mutawatir hadith as being equal to the quran in trustworthiness and soundness is from deduction, and does not need a hadith that says that a mutawatir hadith is as good as the Quran. Your demand that I produce this hadith is simply �obfuscation�. Could you show me a hadith that tells us that a mutawatir ahadith cannot be used for matters of life and death? Of course not and it would be dubious of me to demand it from you.

1)    A mutawatir ahadith means, by its very nature, that it can not have been forged.

2)    It came from the Prophet (saw), and the Sahaba, who were instructed by the Prophet (saw), and the Quran orders us to follow the Prophet (saw).

3)    It is as equal to the Quran in its soundess, not in its nature as recitation (nor did I ever claim that it was the same as in nature), and following it is the same as following the sahaba and the Prophet (saw).

minuteman wrote: andalus wrote: minuteman wrote: Yet you want to do it. That is not understood. Killing some one is not an ordinary matter. That mass transmission is not like Salat etc. And salat is prescribed in the Quran itself. I told you that if you use the unrecited Wahi then you will be killing the apostates. I do not support that too. Not only do I want to do it, but my view is in agreement with the sahaba, the tabi'in, their followers, and the greatest minds that have ever lived. It seems my friend, that my view has a lot more weight. I am not sure where you have learned about the science of fiqh, but a mutawatir ahadith can, indeed, be soley used to derive a hadd offense punishment. That is established by the majority of jurists. If you disagree, then you have used your own ijtihad to go against 1200 years of the greatest scholarship.   So it is devised by the scholars. And not stated by the prophet? I may not take it. I would rather take the advice of that scholar who said that important matters affecting life and death and Haraam/ halaal cannot be decided by the Hadith alone. Proof for them must come from the Quran.

No, it is devised by the Prophet (saw), who particularized some punishments. It is what the Prophet (saw) of Islam devised, not scholars. And you have yet to provide a single, solid argument to reject this. Your principle is simply an assertion, which is baseless until you can provide an argument to qualify it to count in this discussion. So far, you are only �disagreeing� with me, and providing strawman arguments which have no outcome on my claims.

minuteman wrote: You have the majority of Jurists on your backing. I don't know them because I see so much havoc being caused to the Muslim world and there is no real guidance. If there was any guidance then the poor Muslims would not have suffered so much. Can you please not see so many branches and sub branches in the Ummah?? Who is responsible for that???

Brother, you are appealing to rhetorical sophistry once more. Making broad sweeping generalizations trying to connect the problems with the Muslim world with the Ulema is not only a logical fallacy, but is irrelevant to my argument. I ask you to please stay on topic. This is a non sequitur, and has no outcome on my thesis, or yours.

minuteman wrote: andalus wrote: minuteman wrote: The proof of unrecited Wahi is in the Quran and Hadith. But I request that you do not use that to kill any one please. I had told you a principle before, perhaps I did not state it completely. You have stated it, the problem is that no such axion exists as far as a strong opinion amongst the ulema concerning a mutawatir ahadith establishing a hadd punishment. You can state someminor opinion untill judgement day, but it still does not mean that the principle exists such that a mutawatir ahadith cannot establish a hadd. I am talking about the four schools of fiqh, a majority of mujtahids that do not follow your personal axiom. I am sorry, I am going with the specialists of fiqh.  You please hold on to the specialists of Fiqah. I do respect the fiqah Hanfiyah. But I do not believe anything against the Quran, clear words of the Quran. I would take that as a slip up during the last 1400 years. The Ummah is torn into two major factions, Sunni and Shia. Just see their Ahadith please.

My question to this is: So what? This is completely irrelevant and has nothing to do with this thread. No one is arguing that the Quran is not clear, what is being argued is that the scope of the Prophet (saw) included particularizing generals in the Quran, including punishments. So far, I have not seen anything from you that rationally places any doubt on this.

minuteman wrote: andalus wrote: minuteman wrote:  Now I remember it much better. I request that you present that to some learned person without any attachments and ask if ot was true or not. That would be better. Funny, I just happen to have a book of tafsir in front of me by a well known Hanafi scholar of <ST1:COUNTRY-REGIoN w:st="on">Pakistan</ST1:COUNTRY-REGIoN>, and he states that a hadd can be established by a mutawatir ahadith, as do the other schools of fiqh. According to you, the unanimous ruling by the four schools of fiqh is wrong and so are the scholars who do not follow your axiom to the extant that you have? Surprising. One scholar is saying thatHadd can be established by a mutawater hadith. The other scholar is saying that matters of great importance, life and death, Haraam and Hallal cannot be left to Hadith alone. Proof for them must come from the Quran. See the two scholars are differing in their opinion.

No, what I see is that you have gone �scholar hunting� to find a �minority� opinion that is considered �weak� as a way to try and show disagreement. What we have to look at is the �dalil�, the proof of these opinions. The �stronger� opinion, the opinion in the majority is such that its �dalil� uses an argument that is �sound�. Those minority �scholars� who have thrown out the hadd ordered by the Prophet (saw) himself are in violation of a prophetic command without any solid bases, and these so called scholars are considered to have followed their �whims�. Your conclusion is a fallacy from �special pleading�.

minuteman wrote: andalus wrote: minuteman wrote: I state that principle again: The serious matters such as of life and death and Halaal and Haraam cannot be decided on the basis of Hadith only. Proof for them should come from the Quran. You must inform the great ulema of their dubious error!  I cannot inform him now because he has died since 30 years.  It is not my duty to inform any one as I feel that you also would not like to inform any of your Ulema too. It has been a discussion and I will try to gain something from it if possible, by reading your presentation a few times. Thanks. Until then we may take some rest. Wassalam.

My point is that your principle seems to be at a loss for 1200 years of scholarship. Why is that?

Umar (ra) stated, "A people will come who will argue with you based on the ambiguous verses of the Quran. Restrict them by the sunnah for people of the sunnah are the most knowledgeable of the Book of Allah." Narrated with a sound chain.

This thread was originally launched by angel.......

She was asking about Quran and Hadith..

I think she is smiling like this  now.

 I have answered to the best of my knowledge. I do not believe that a punishment is in the Hadith only and that is death penulty. I do believe that The punishment for the adulterer in the Torah is stoning to death. I also believe that the punishment of the adulterer in the Quran is not stoning to death. This being a serious matter, why did not Allah mention it in the Quran. When Allah could do it in the Torah then why He did not do it in the Quran???

 There are people who want to take charge of the Quran by a hadith. I do not allow it. It will be the Quran which will explain and take charge of the Hadith. Hadith will never take charge of the Quran.

 Hadith is to serve the Quran and Sunnah, not to take charge of them. Of course Hadith has its importance but that is after the Quran and Sunnah (The practice of the holy prophet). We will always follow the Quran first. Then we will see the practice of the holy prophet s.a.w.s. After that we will consider the Hadith (the sayings and reports /traditions).

 If any one will read the first verse of the Surah Noor (chapter 24) he/she will be convinced that the chapter had been revealed with obligatory orders and clear (Bayyan) orders (Aayaat) so that people may remember the advice and the orders. It says that orders are bayyan (very clear). That is followed by the words, "Give 100 lashes to the adulterer man and woman, both of them......"

Any one who believes that the punishment for the adulterers is not 100 lashes means that he has some other source of information over and above that given in the Quran. And that must be some secret info too. To say that in this chapter , the adulterer is meant to be an unmarried adulterer. That is the secret meaning. From where they got that meaning??? Allah says that orders are very clear and self explainatory. But some Mullas, on some authority, on some traditions and reports in the books of Hadith, they say that stoning was practiced in the life time of the prophet s.a.w.s. and even after that.

 I agree that it was done in the time of the prophet. But for how long?? And to whom?? Once there was a case of Jewish lady. At another time it was a believing Muslim man. It is important to know how long that was done.

Bismillah irrahman irrahim

Assalamu alaykum

I don't know why but my heart got filled with this feeling of pain and sorrow reading your post brother. The material i gave the reference for clearly tells of three incident in the time of Sayyidina Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wassalam and then it tells you accounts from time of Umar and Uthman radhiAllah anhuma. Brother do you really think that these two companions would have gone against the practise of Sayyidina Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wassalam? And do you really think that Sayyidina Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wassalam could have done against the permission of his Lord?

Brother i know you are trying to understand as all of us but do you think that every member of first three generation had it wrong? Do you know when Surah Noor was revealed? It was revealed before Surah Munaafiqun and Surah Munaafiqun is the Surah which was revealed straight after Uhud, Uhud happening in third of Hijri. Brother i would be scared as anything about the possibility of those three events not happening in first two years and making claims about Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala about which i have no true knowledge of. Speacially when it was the practise of the companion whose judgement was in agreement with that of Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala even before the revelation of that judgement on about five times.

Wassalam

 Sorry to disturb your peace of mind fatima. Please be comfortable. The Surah Noor was revealed in 05 Hijrah. Suppose that the prophet s.a.w.s. was applying the punishment of stoning for the adulterers before the revelation of Surah Noor. Could you please tell me on what account, on what instruction or order from Allah was he doing that?? Can you present that order or text?? I admit that he was using Rajm as the punishment. I agree to that.

I am rather busy now. I will come back to you soon with the rest of the matter. Thanks.

abuzaid wrote: This thread was originally launched by angel....... She was asking about Quran and Hadith.. I think she is smiling like this  now.

Well, actually, I'm more .

I was more looking at a more general thing, but used stoning as a specific incident.

I thought I had figured out a few things about Sharia and the roles of Hadith and Quran.......  now I'm just even more confused.  When you start pulling in opinions of men who aren't prophets...then it goes awry. 

The excuses that the Quran is only talking about unmarried women seems rather week.  (my opinion)  More of an excuse.  Besides, the Hadith are not dated....how do you know if the stonings were before or after the revelation in the Quran?

As for the companions and what they did after Mohammed (pbuh)?  I don't mean any insult by this, but they were JUST men, they weren't Prophets.  Therefore, fallible.  Its all what God commanded isn't it?>

Better safe than sorry. 

Narrated Ash Shaibani:

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

minuteman wrote:    I have answered to the best of my knowledge. I do not believe that a punishment is in the Hadith only and that is death penulty. I do believe that The punishment for the adulterer in the Torah is stoning to death. I also believe that the punishment of the adulterer in the Quran is not stoning to death. This being a serious matter, why did not Allah mention it in the Quran. When Allah could do it in the Torah then why He did not do it in the Quran???

Brother, you are entitled to your opinion and I cannot judge you for your view, only Allah can truly Judge, but I ask you as a brother in Islam to be cautious when you are dealing with non-Muslims, especially Christians who are strangers to the idea of a prophetic authority in addition to a "revelation". Your views are simply your personal opinions and do not actually represent the reality of Islam and the principles of fiqh that have been in place since the fourth generation.

Your above explanaiton reflects the assumption that you have tried to rest your belief on:The Quran should contain a capital punishment or else it should not exist.

Your assumption is unfounded, as you cannot explain the role of the Prophet in his use of the punishment, the Sahaba, the tabi'in, and their followers. You will not come out and say they are wrong, in fact, you will not provide any solid stance on their use of the punishment.

Your assumption is entirely ambiguous on the scope of Prophethood. You do not want to say that the Prophet (saw) was wrong, or someone lied about his use of the punishment, yet you want to say that you do not believe in the use of rajm because it is in the sunnah, not the Quran.

Your grounds for rejecting the punishment are simply unfounded, and while I do not think ill of you for your thoughts, I only ask that you do not try and give the presumption to non-Muslims that your opinion is the stronger opinion that is followed by Muslims. Your personal view is simply that, your view. 

There are people who want to take charge of the Quran by a hadith. I do not allow it. It will be the Quran which will explain and take charge of the Hadith. Hadith will never take charge of the Quran.

Thats fine Brother, but your position is not the qualified posiion of the Prophet (saw), and the first three and four generations. This is simply your personal views, and you should not allow non-Muslims to assume that your view is a strong argued position. No one is allowing the Hadith to "take over", I have already explained to you, multiple times, how the issue works. The hadith does not "take over". This is another infactual assertion that you have tried to put forth before. 

You say, "  It will be the Quran which will explain and take charge of the Hadith", brother, this is simply infactual, without any bases in the principles of fiqh. You are trying to assert your personal feelings onto the realm of juresprudence. Your statement also implies that you ideas of the scope of prophethood is something entirely different than what reality dictates.

You are still etirely ambiguous on your views of the "scope of Prophetic Authority", Islam views his scope as being a source to interpret Quran, and I can give many, many examples. In exegetical matters, yes, the first source is Quran explains Quran, but the next source is Prophet (saw) explains Quran, and this is used quite often on issues of rulings. Rajm is such a case, and I have already explained it to you over and over, and you simply reply with your same baseless assertions, unfounded assumptions, and opinion after personal opinion, and you assert your persoanl views as if it is fact.

Hadith is to serve the Quran and Sunnah, not to take charge of them. Of course Hadith has its importance but that is after the Quran and Sunnah (The practice of the holy prophet). We will always follow the Quran first. Then we will see the practice of the holy prophet s.a.w.s. After that we will consider the Hadith (the sayings and reports /traditions).

Rajm does not deny that the Quran is the primary source of guidance. This has already been argued and I will not repeat myself.

If any one will read the first verse of the Surah Noor (chapter 24) he/she will be convinced that the chapter had been revealed with obligatory orders and clear (Bayyan) orders (Aayaat) so that people may remember the advice and the orders. It says that orders are bayyan (very clear). That is followed by the words, "Give 100 lashes to the adulterer man and woman, both of them......" Any one who believes that the punishment for the adulterers is not 100 lashes means that he has some other source of information over and above that given in the Quran. And that must be some secret info too. To say that in this chapter , the adulterer is meant to be an unmarried adulterer. That is the secret meaning. From where they got that meaning??? Allah says that orders are very clear and self explainatory. But some Mullas, on some authority, on some traditions and reports in the books of Hadith, they say that stoning was practiced in the life time of the prophet s.a.w.s. and even after that.  I agree that it was done in the time of the prophet. But for how long?? And to whom?? Once there was a case of Jewish lady. At another time it was a believing Muslim man. It is important to know how long that was done.

You have already been responded to regarding Surah An-noor, with hadith as supporting evidence, and you have also ignored the first four generations, and their views and the entire methodology of legal rulings in the shariah. You have already ranted about Mullahs. Brother, you have already been replied to regarding everything you just wrote. You are free to have your own personal views, but do not try and push these unargued, unproven, personal opinions off on non-believers as if your personal feelings represent "Islam".

 O.K. Thanks for your comments. I will not bother any one again unless I have severe ground for that. Presently, I wanted to know from you whether you are aware that:

1. There are Muslims who believe in the Quran fully, and interpret it in their own way and they do not give due importance to the Sunnah or Hadith??? They are called Ahle Quran or Munkir e Sunnah. There is quite a number of such persons.

2. There are others who give too much importance to the Hadith (sayings of the holy prophet of Islam), over and above the words of the Quran. They have a name. May be Ahle Hadith. But not all ahle Hadith may be doing that. There are such persons. I had the experience of meeting such persons. And I can give the exact example what went on between myself and that person (a friend).

3. I hope you will agree with me that both of the above mentioned groups are not right???

4. There is no doubt that nobody understood the Quran more than the prophet himself.

Angela wrote: abuzaid wrote: This thread was originally launched by angel....... She was asking about Quran and Hadith.. I think she is smiling like this  now. Well, actually, I'm more . I was more looking at a more general thing, but used stoning as a specific incident. I thought I had figured out a few things about Sharia and the roles of Hadith and Quran.......  now I'm just even more confused.  When you start pulling in opinions of men who aren't prophets...then it goes awry.

I understand your confusion given that you come from a gentile background where jurisprudence is nearly non existant in terms of Judaic legal philosophy and Islamic legal philosophy.

Keep in mind that Muslims do not view a revelation as something that just falls from the sky and something magical from heaven allows anyone to pick it up and derive law. FUrthermore, Christian need for law is nearly non-existant, and the main use of the Torah is too find Jesus in it.

For Muslims, we have a detailed path that we aim to walk. The generalities are not in dispute, but the details are something we aim to know.

The Prophetic scope of authority covers teaching the revelation, not just vocalizing the revelation. The scope of prophethood of Muhammad (saw) included particularizing various verses in the Quran.

His scope also included receiving revelation that is not recited. This source is looked upon as a valid source for exegesis of the Quran and for matters of jurisprudence.

This might be demonstrated with your bible. Unknown to most Christians, your TORAH was never meant to be interpreted without the Oral tradition, which is based upon the teachings and explanations of Moses. Trying to interpret the Torah without another source has never been a problem for Christians because you have no need to derive law.  

So we have a revelation, a prophet to explain it, and then we need something after the prophet, which would be the most knowledgable person who learned from the prophet of the revelation and gave instructions and explanations. The most learned became the one who was able to help the average worshiper in matters of religion.

Whether or not a man gives a ruling is irrelevant here,because we are not talking about just any men, but men who were students personally trained and approved of by the Prophet (saw)himself. Your faith has been defined my a man who never met Jesus, yet your faith is nearly defined by him (Paul). Paul was not a prophet. So as a Muslim, I would say that we would not go as far as Christians in following a man in terms of faith, but we do know that a scholar is an authority.

The excuses that the Quran is only talking about unmarried women seems rather week.  (my opinion)  More of an excuse.  Besides, the Hadith are not dated....how do you know if the stonings were before or after the revelation in the Quran?

It is not an "excuse", it is "exegesis", and the word in the Quran does not signify if the person is married or not, the word simply means "unlawful sex", and is ambiguous about the status of the person. It does not particularize.

The hadith are clear that the prophet (saw) ordered the lashes for unmarried men and women, and stoning for married men and women. There is absolutely no change in this behavior from the time of the Prophet until the third generation.

This act is so mass narrated that it would be impossible for a mistake to have been made.

Keep in mind that this interpretation has not been argued by the greatest minds that have lived in the last 1200 years because Muslims hate women or free love, but because the evidence provides such a sound and strong argument, and those who have stated otherwsie have based their opinion on a "weak" argument, and this group has been in such a small minority that it has never effected the status of rajm in Islam until the 20th century when some Muslims have decided it is more important to agree with secular kafirs than the Prophet and his companions.

As for the companions and what they did after Mohammed (pbuh)?  I don't mean any insult by this, but they were JUST men, they weren't Prophets.  Therefore, fallible.  Its all what God commanded isn't it?> Better safe than sorry.

The companions ordered stoning, and has nothing to do with fallibility. It has to do with "confidence". Stoning is so widely mass narrated that it is its own proof.

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

Uncertainty does not allow one to derive "any kind of certainty". This hadith is not the proof used for rajm, nor is it proof to discontinue it. This thread has supplied many of the accounts and the position for the use of stoning has been the strongest argument and put forth for 1200 years.

I appreciate your interest and patience in this thread.

Kindest regards