> Alleged Missing Qur'anic Verse of Rajam (Stoning)

[salman]

:

In this article, I have refuted the enemies of Islam's false allegation that Qur'an is missing the ayah of rajam (stoning); thus the Qur'an is incomplete and not preserved. I have presented lots of Islamic textual evidences to refute their poor attack.

In this thread, the readers can discuss the article in detail, ask questions for clarifications, help us polishing our arguments or share your arguments which I did not mention, and the non-Muslims can refute my points if they feel like it.

Alleged Missing Qur'anic Verse of Rajam (Stoning)

[Raied]

Asalamo Alaikum!
Excellent stuff bro. Im really impressed.
I actually studied about this, at Al-Maghrib. Very interesting stuff!
If n e one is interested the clas was called Ulumul Qur'an (Sciences of the Qur'an)

[salman]

alhamdulillah and Barak Allah fi ka akhi. Why don't you share your notes with us? I'm sure it will help everyone, insha'Allah!

[optimist]

Originally Posted by salman

alhamdulillah and Barak Allah fi ka akhi. Why don't you share your notes with us? I'm sure it will help everyone, insha'Allah!

Dear Brother, Assalamu alaikum

I am really impressed by the forum, the way the topics are arranged, the design and the layout. I read your article on the Rajam verses . You have used good logic to answer some points. But you have countered only those group of people who who argue there is verse regarding Rajam and the Quran is incomplete since there is no such verse in the Quran. But there are another section of the people who say there was no such verse itself in the Quran even before or after. You did not counter their views. I will tell you the arguments in support of this.

1. In one of the six most authentic Hadith books by Ibne Maja, Vol. III, Chapter 36 (suckling of a young boy), Hadith No. 1944, we find a hadith told by Hazrat Aysha, in which she says:

"The aa'yaa on stoning and nursing of babies were lying in book form that was kept in the patio. When the Holy Messenger passed away, we became busy in his funeral. During this time, our domesticated pet goat ate the manuscript of these two aa'yaa. And so these aa'yaa were wasted."

Here the incident happens after the death of prophet. How can a verse could be taken out from the Quran after the death of the prophet and that too due to a goat eating the verses. Can't you see the contradiction here?

2. It is an accepted position among scholars that even if a verse is abrogated the verse will be still finding a place in the Quran and only its ruling will be abrogated. Here what is happening is; a verse was taken out from the Quran, but its ruling is made applicable! There is also another question. If the verse of stoning is “abrogated” and taken out of the Qur'an in this way, how come its ruling still valid?

3. You had quoted a hadith wherein Hasrat Omer as saying; “If I were not afraid of people saying 'Umar added/written in the book of Allah which was not there, I would have written/added in it the ayah of rajam the way it was revealed.”

Can you explain to me why Harat Omar (s) said 'if I were not afraid of people saying'? We all know Hasrat Omar (s) will never be afraid of what people will be saying, he will be only afraid of Allah and his messenger.

4. There is a hadith in Bukhari: Volume 5, Number 188: Narrated 'Amr bin Maimun: “During the pre-Islamic period of ignorance I saw a she-monkey surrounded by a number of monkeys. They were all stoning it, because it had committed illegal sexual intercourse. I too, stoned it along with them.”

What does it mean for a Monkey to commit “Zina” after being “married”? And how did Amr bin Maimun know that the she-monkey had committed Zina?

While reading the hadiths which talk about stoning verses, a goat eating the pages containing stoning verses, stoning of monkeys and all, we get a feeling that these hadiths were made up by people with good intention to prove that stoning indeed is the punishment from Allah. I like to read your comments on this points.


I hope an intellectual discussion is allowed in the forum

Wassalam

[Assad]

:

You have quoted a completely unauthentic hadith regarding goat eating the verse. Some one will address the point here.

Secondly you said that Omar r.a. was only afraid of Allah and His Messenger SAW. That is absolutely true but in the context in which he said that people may will stand up against him thinking that he did something which Allah and His Messenger forbade. It was also the fear of Allah SWT that he didnt add the rajam verses because they were not part of the Quran so why should Omar r.a. add it in the Quran?

InshAllah someone would soon address this and welcome to the forum.

[Assad]

"The aa'yaa on stoning and nursing of babies were lying in book form that was kept in the patio. When the Holy Messenger passed away, we became busy in his funeral. During this time, our domesticated pet goat ate the manuscript of these two aa'yaa. And so these aa'yaa were wasted."

----

I think if this is authentic than it also means that the copy of the verses with was with Ayesha r.a. was eaten by goat. It was just her single copy which got wasted that doesnt mean that this was the ONLY COPY!

Just like If you lose your science book published by Oxford University, doesnt mean that there is no other copy of that science book anywhere else!

[optimist]

Originally Posted by Acid

:

You have quoted a completely unauthentic hadith regarding goat eating the verse. Some one will address the point here.

Secondly you said that Omar r.a. was only afraid of Allah and His Messenger SAW. That is absolutely true but in the context in which he said that people may will stand up against him thinking that he did something which Allah and His Messenger forbade. It was also the fear of Allah SWT that he didnt add the rajam verses because they were not part of the Quran so why should Omar r.a. add it in the Quran?

InshAllah someone would soon address this and welcome to the forum.

Salam,

Thank you brother for your comments. And thank you for welcoming me to the forum. The hadith regarding goat eating verse is not unauthentic. It is an authentic hadith. You can ask any scholar. Secondly,If Allah and his messenger has forbidden something there will be no question of Omar(r) fearing what people will be thinking if he violated that order, he will be only afraid of violating the commandments of Allah and his messenger. When Omar(r) says If he had not feared the people he would have added the verse in the Quran, it means, it is the fear of the people which prevented Omar(r) to add this verse in the Quran rather than commandments of Allah and his messenger, which can not be true. May be I am not understanding correctly meaning of the hadith brother Salman has quoted.

Wassalam

[salman]

Originally Posted by optimist

Dear Brother, Assalamu alaikum

I am really impressed by the forum, the way the topics are arranged, the design and the layout.

wa alayka as-salam brother

welcome to Islamic-Life and we are glad that your stay has been beneficial for you. May Allah Ta'ala make our stay here beneficial for us in this world and here after, ameen.

Originally Posted by optimist

I read your article on the Rajam verses . You have used good logic to answer some points. But you have countered only those group of people who who argue there is verse regarding Rajam and the Quran is incomplete since there is no such verse in the Quran. But there are another section of the people who say there was no such verse itself in the Quran even before or after. You did not counter their views. I will tell you the arguments in support of this.

wa allhamdulillah, first, we act as arrogant and think that we come up with things but that is just not true - our Lord Bestows us wisdom and knowledge - hence we utilize His na'eemah (bounty) upon us

Secondly, those people who argue that way are speaking without knowledge and some from their desires to suite their corrupt agendas. allhamdulillah, I can guess correctly from which group this argument come from even though I have never countered it before. They are most likley modrnists, or shias or hadith rejecters. People belonging to these groups have extreme views, unlike the People of Sunnah; hence, in order to support their batil creed and corrupt understanding of Islam they bring such silly arguments which are very silly among the people of knowledge.

Thirdly, what is textual evidence for their claim - whatever they bring forth is an evidence against them.

Foruthly, one needs to understand the science of naskh and mansookh in order to understand this issue and any other related issue on abrogation.

Originally Posted by optimist

1. In one of the six most authentic Hadith books by Ibne Maja, Vol. III, Chapter 36 (suckling of a young boy), Hadith No. 1944, we find a hadith told by Hazrat Aysha, in which she says:

"The aa'yaa on stoning and nursing of babies were lying in book form that was kept in the patio. When the Holy Messenger passed away, we became busy in his funeral. During this time, our domesticated pet goat ate the manuscript of these two aa'yaa. And so these aa'yaa were wasted."

Here the incident happens after the death of prophet. How can a verse could be taken out from the Quran after the death of the prophet and that too due to a goat eating the verses. Can't you see the contradiction here?

this hadith is authentic to my knowldge and it has also been relayed of Imam of Ahlus Sunnah - Ahamd ibn Hanbal (rahimahullah) - in his musnad and by few other scholars of hadith. This narration is in fact an evidence against them: those who say people of sunnah support tahreef of the Qur'an (Shia) and those who say rajm is not from Islam (modernists, hadith rejecters). We know from other narrations that when Allah Ta'ala wanted to abrogate an ayah He used many means: making people forget those ayaat or not being able to recite or direclty told by Allah's Messenger (sal-allahu alayhi wa sallam). If my memory serves me right, I think the ulama have said that this could also be one of those means. allhamdulillah, brother as you may know that an imjaa (consensus) is also an evidence for sharee rulings in Islam. If number of scholars agreed upon on a ruling during one period of time then going against it means you got it all wrong. This is about the scholars, what about the sahaba, from whom this deen came from? There is consenus on the ayaat of abrogations among the sahabas (radiAllahhu anhuma) and somehting said by sahabi is generally known as marfu narrations - meaning they heard from Allah's Messenger (sal-allahu alayhi wa sallam)

Now tackling this directly

The statement of Umar (radiAllahu anho) is enough evidence to prove that the exact nature regarding rajam was well known among the sahaba otherwise there would be have some evidence contradicting him but there is none. Hence, this was agreed upon matter among the sahaba. The goat eating the paper, where ayah was written down, and the fact that it was known among the sahaba and not written down is an evidence that it was abrogated. The ayah was not written down because it was lost and goat ate it but the fact that it was known among the sahabas that it was abrogated and therefore they did not write it down. The goat eating it could be a sign of confirmation that it was abrogated. And Aishah's (radiAllahu anha) written material of the Qur'an was not the only available written material. She could have been not informed about the abrogation ruling or she did not remove it.

The whole thing boils down to that there is no evidence against the abrogation and the actual ruling of stoning remaining. If they wanted to miss out certain ayaat of the Qur'an or whatever reasons, why did they preserve rest of the Qur'an? What would make them stop from writing it down!? Really, where is the logic and common sense!?

Originally Posted by optimist

2. It is an accepted position among scholars that even if a verse is abrogated the verse will be still finding a place in the Quran and only its ruling will be abrogated. Here what is happening is; a verse was taken out from the Quran, but its ruling is made applicable! There is also another question. If the verse of stoning is “abrogated” and taken out of the Qur'an in this way, how come its ruling still valid?

there is different kinds of abrogation and one is that the ayaat were abrogated (the recitation) but the rulings remained. This is not something which latar mulla scholars came up with to justify stoning people rather this has been narrted to us by the companions of Allah's Messenger (sal-allahu alayhi wa sallam) and if someone believes that he got the whole of Islam then statements of sahabas should besufficient for them.

Originally Posted by optimist

3. You had quoted a hadith wherein Hasrat Omer as saying; “If I were not afraid of people saying 'Umar added/written in the book of Allah which was not there, I would have written/added in it the ayah of rajam the way it was revealed.”

Can you explain to me why Harat Omar (s) said 'if I were not afraid of people saying'? We all know Hasrat Omar (s) will never be afraid of what people will be saying, he will be only afraid of Allah and his messenger.

brother, this has been explained in the article, please re-read it. He clearly stated that if he were not afraid of people saying that 'Umar (radiAllahu anho) added something in the Qur'an, when it was not by the hukm of Allah and guideline of Allah's Messenger (sal-allahu alayhi wa sallam), then he would have added this ayah in the written part. More evidence for us and a textual slap on their faces.

Originally Posted by optimist

4. There is a hadith in Bukhari: Volume 5, Number 188: Narrated 'Amr bin Maimun: “During the pre-Islamic period of ignorance I saw a she-monkey surrounded by a number of monkeys. They were all stoning it, because it had committed illegal sexual intercourse. I too, stoned it along with them.”

What does it mean for a Monkey to commit “Zina” after being “married”? And how did Amr bin Maimun know that the she-monkey had committed Zina?

this has been discussed here in details

Originally Posted by optimist

While reading the hadiths which talk about stoning verses, a goat eating the pages containing stoning verses, stoning of monkeys and all, we get a feeling that these hadiths were made up by people with good intention to prove that stoning indeed is the punishment from Allah. I like to read your comments on this points.

the worst of speech is that which is made up and then attributed to Islam and the Messenger of Allah (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa sallam). What hidden purpose did sahaba had or what did they gain by making up such stories? We know the virtue of sahabas (may Allah be pleased with them); why would they make up stuff. The one who implies this has disease in his heart and we ask Allah to guide them to haqq, ameen. In fact, such person is in more trouble because if we were to hold this view then how can you trust anything in Islam! Was Islam not come through these pepele, were it not these who preserved the deen? If so, then what evidence do you have that they did not make up everything about Islam!? Pure rubbish, the least I can say!

brother, the problem with these Muslims, who argue against rajm, is that they have forgotten their sole purpose of life, which is that we here to please Allah Ta'ala and we forbid and enjoin good. We are not here to please the people or make sure that people like Islam - this is not our job. When we hold onto such corrupt methodology then we will perceive these suspicions about Islam and fall into the traps of Iblees and the kufaar, who are working together day and night to make sure that we become one of them.

Originally Posted by optimist

I hope an intellectual discussion is allowed in the forum

allhamdulillah, these kinds of discussions are allowed, after all this is one of the purpose of this website - educating Muslims and providing a platform to respond to falsehood

waAllahu A'lam (and Allah knows best)

[Assad]

:

JazakumAllah khair bro Salman, you have really cleared all the points. Until now I thought that this hadith was unauthentic and I remember a Christian using it against me ages.

It makes sense and this hadith does not say anywhere that it's Quran is incomplete or that Rajam is not a punishment from Allah infact It's an evidence to contrary.

[optimist]

Originally Posted by salman

....the worst of speech is that which is made up and then attributed to Islam and the Messenger of Allah (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa sallam). What hidden purpose did sahaba had or what did they gain by making up such stories? We know the virtue of sahabas (may Allah be pleased with them); why would they make up stuff. The one who implies this has disease in his heart and we ask Allah to guide them to haqq, ameen. In fact, such person is in more trouble because if we were to hold this view then how can you trust anything in Islam! Was Islam not come through these pepele, were it not these who preserved the deen? If so, then what evidence do you have that they did not make up everything about Islam!? Pure rubbish, the least I can say!

Salam,
I also fully agree with you that the true Sahabas of prophet would not make up anything. But we all know that Bukhari collected only around 7000 Hadiths out of some 600,000 hadiths that he came across. It means he rejected 98% of the hadiths as not authentic. And Muslim collected only around 4000 Hadiths out of some 300,000 hadiths. So it is clear that when Bukhari and Muslims started collecting the hadiths, the vast majority of hadiths in circulation were not authentic. Bukhari and Muslim spent their life time verifying each and every hadith, the authenticity of the chain of narrators, etc. They collected what they thought as authentic based on the criteria they used for acceptance of a hadith. But we should not forget that they were also human beings. We also must not forget the fact that they were making this laborious effort more than 200 years after the death of the prophet in a land that had neither paper nor the abundance of scribes to write anything down. The dependence was mainly on hearsay evidence alone. It is like we try to verify the truthfulness of the sayings of a person living during the year 1750-1800. Isn’t there a chance that may be out of this 7000 collected as true by Bukhari 50 to 100 hadiths are also likely to be not true (similar like 98% of the hadiths rejected by Bukhari)?

Only considering this possibility I was saying that the hadith regarding a goat eating a verse from the Quran, a stoning verse in the Quran, stoning of monkeys may be hadiths created by people with good intention to give an 'additional proof' for stoning punishment.

Let me interrupt. We are not discussing here the authenticity of stoning as punishment, for which the proof is not these hadiths. These hadiths will be only supportive for the people who argue there is no stoning in Islam. Since one can argue that if Allah wanted to delete the stoning verses it would mean that Allah does not want to implement punishment for stoning. It will be more difficult to convince the reason for deleting the stoning verses and at the same time the punishment prescribed in the deleted verses still to be considered valid. I hope you can follow my argument.

Well, you provided me a link where the hadith regarding stoning of monkey is discussed and brother Qatadah has given convincing proof that this hadith is only a personal account of Amr and could not be taken in face value. But we all know Bukhari included this story as authentic in his collection. It is possible that Bukhari made an error in his judgment regarding the truthfulness of this Hadith.

The goat eating it could be a sign of confirmation that it was abrogated. And Aishah's (radiAllahu anha) written material of the Qur'an was not the only available written material. She could have been not informed about the abrogation ruling or she did not remove it.

For me, I find it very hard to believe Aysha, the mother of the believers, was in possession of the Quran containing the stoning of the verses, and that she was not even aware about this issue before. This hadith says a goat ate the stoning verses and so these ayaats were wasted. Isn’t there a contradiction between this hadith and the hadith from Omar wherein it clearly says already this verses were already taken out from Quran? This hadith almost looks similar to monkey stoning hadith.

Wassalam