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

[Assad]

Originally Posted by optimist

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)?

As you said that Imam Bukhari spent his lift time studying and verifying authentic hadith and rejected 98% of hadiths, based on his strict criteria of authenticity of hadiths, the burden of proof is someone who wants to prove it otherwise.
On what basis you are saying that there is a chance of 50-100 hadiths in Sahih Bukhari being unauthentic? I could say that these 50-100 unauthentic verses were flagged as unauthentic in the rest 98% which Imam Bukhari rejected.

You see brother, I feel that you have been talking to Christianis or Quranists and they only want to sow seeds of doubts. You have provided no evidence of 50 to 100 unauthentic hadiths for example, It's just a conjecture, that is all they want to do. They want to make it appear that everything in Islam is not perfect, there is always something going wrong and false.

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.

There is no contradiction. What contradiction do you see here? The goat ate the paper which had this hadith, ok fine, so what? Whats that got to with the abrogation of its recitation from Quran as mentioned by Umar r.a. ?

[optimist]

Originally Posted by Acid

As you said that Imam Bukhari spent his lift time studying and verifying authentic hadith and rejected 98% of hadiths, based on his strict criteria of authenticity of hadiths, the burden of proof is someone who wants to prove it otherwise.

Originally Posted by Acid

On what basis you are saying that there is a chance of 50-100 hadiths in Sahih Bukhari being unauthentic? I could say that these 50-100 unauthentic verses were flagged as unauthentic in the rest 98% which Imam Bukhari rejected.

Salam,

Well, I do not know how to convince you with a proof acceptable for you. You have already before you proof regarding one hadith collected by Bukhari, stoning of monkeys, the authenticity of which was extensively discussed by Qatadah under the following thread quoted by brother Salman. According to me, he has proved beyond any shadow of any doubt that this hadith can not be taken in its face value. It depends how you approch his arguments

http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/showthread.php?t=3257

So also there are many traditional scholars who admit that each and every hadith collected by Bukhari’s can not be said to be infallible. It is possible that his judgment, as a human being, on some hadiths could be wrong, not all.

Prof. Muhammad Zybayr Siddiqui, The late Professor of Islamic Culture, Calcutta University, gives the following explanation in his book 'Hadith Literature- Its Origin, Development & Special Features’ (p.129).

“It is true that all the Musannaf collections of Hadith are arranged into books and chapters according to the subject matter and contain a short description of the Isnad in technical language, without much analysis presented of the character of the text. Yet in every extensive exegetic literature, the commentators do of course subject text to a close critique… It appears, however, that the function of the collection and formal Isnad Criticism of the Hadith was reserved for the collectors, while the function of their material criticism was left for the Jurists and Commentators on the various anthologies”.

Before this, at page 58 he wrote about Bukhari’s Hadith:

“It would be a mistake, however, to suppose that the Sahih is free of defects, or that the Muslim Scholars have failed to criticise it in certain respects. Thus it is generally accepted that like other Traditionalists, Al-Bukhari confines his criticism to the narrators of traditions, and their reliability, and pays little attention to the probability or possibility of the truth of the actual material reported by them. In estimating the reliability of the narrators, his judgment has in certain cases been erroneous, and the Muslim Traditionalists have not failed to point out this”.

You see brother, I feel that you have been talking to Christianis or Quranists and they only want to sow seeds of doubts. You have provided no evidence of 50 to 100 unauthentic hadiths for example, It's just a conjecture, that is all they want to do. They want to make it appear that everything in Islam is not perfect, there is always something going wrong and false.

I read all materials and I only pay attention if there is some convincing arguments. Regarding the hadith about the stoning verse, I have doubt about its truthfulness due to many reasons. I have already explained some of the reasons and I provide below some additional reasons. The wording in the hadith where Umar (r) 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.” disturbs me. I can not even remotely expect Umar (r) talking about fearing the people on a matter related to Islam.

The hadith also states Umar (r) as saying that penalty of Rajm to be inflicted if the crime is proved by witnesses or pregnancy or confession

These additional two grounds for Rajm punishment, pregnency and confession, mentioned by Umar (r) need to be discussed bit elaborative and we have to verify whether those grounds violate the rules set by Allah in the Quran.

The Qur'an first established that there was to be no speculation about a women’s sexual conduct. No one may cast any doubt upon the character of a woman except by formal charge with the support of four eyewitnesses. If such direct proof does not materialise then anyone engaging in such a charge is subject to physical punishment for slander.

The following verses were revealed in connection with a rumour spread against Aysha’s honour. Notice how strongly the Qur'an prohibits public discussion of Zina.

“Why did the faithful men and women not think well of their people when they heard this, and (say) “this is a clear lie”? When you talked about it and said what you did not know, and took it lightly, though in the sight of God it was serious. Why did you not say when you heard it: “this is not for us to speak of it? Glory to thee (our Lord), this is a most serious slander!” - (24:12-16)

Therefore, why the Qur'an has put strict evidentiary requirements to allege sexual misconduct is that, it wanted to safeguard the dignity of women. If four witnesses are not available, the Qur'anic response is: walk away, leave her alone. Leave her dignity intact. The honour of a woman is not a tool; it is her fundamental right.

However, we will see how the spirit of these verses will be lost when we allow the above Hadith, which also prescribes two additional evidences, pregnancy and confession, to interpret the Quran.

If pregnancy is taken as a ground for punishment for Zina, the women is automatically put in the position of defending her honour against accusations, which do not meet the Qur'anic four-witness requirement. This unfairness is not supported by the spirit of the Qur'anic verses which discourage women’s sexual activity by insisting that no presumptions be made about women’s sexual conduct without four witnesses. The shift in the burden of proof will be even more patently unfair when the pregnant woman is a victim of rape. In that instance, an unmarried pregnant woman must overcome the burden of a prima facie case against her simply because the attack has resulted in pregnancy.

Moreover, the Qur'anic insistence on four witnesses, as we saw earlier, establishes that the act of intercourse must be public, i.e., not less than four people must witness this act, not its consequences. It is in such a public sex in which the involved persons are liable to be punished, not public pregnancy. One cannot tell whether the pregnancy occurred from rape or Zina. In modern societies of large populations, it is generally not obvious which of these will apply to pregnant women on the street. Nor, indeed, should the public speculate about it without the solid eyewitness proof. Furthermore, pregnancy is something that only applies to women. If pregnancy alone constitutes sufficient evidence of Zina, the result overshadows the very purpose of the Zina verses is to protect women’s honour. Women, again, tend to be susceptible to accusation, and the Qur'an addresses this susceptibility directly, by enjoining any charges against women without solid proof. If pregnancy is allowed as sufficient proof of Zina, a pregnant adulteress will be convicted without any testimonial proof, while her adulterous partner escapes punishment with his reputation intact. The woman-affirming spirit of the Zina verses is lost.


Now we will discuss confession as a ground for punishment for Zina and understand how it infridges the Quranic principles. First, let us discuss a case where one party confesses and the other party denies? Suppose a man confesses that he had sexual relation with someone. How can we take this confession as evidence for Zina? Following the principle of the Qur'an this man should be charged for punishment for slander if the women alleged to have involved testifies that she had no relation with this man. Because any public confession by one party without producing the required witnesses is tantamount to making a false charge against the other party which is punishable under Qur'anic law. Still, a hypothetical question will be: what happens if both parties involved in Zina come forward and confess voluntarily to their sin? Evidently, one who has imbibed the spirit of the Qur'anic law on Zina will dismiss it as hypothetical and irrelevant. In this regard, please read verses 68 to 71 of chapter 25, where Allah promises forgiveness to those involved in adultery, if there is true repentance as tested by a changed life in conduct. The verses decribe the qualities of true servents of Allah;

“And the servants of (Allah) Most Gracious are those who walk on the earth in humility.............Those who invoke not, with Allah, any other god, nor slay such life as Allah has made sacred except for just cause, nor commit fornication; - and any that does this (not only) meets punishment. (But) the Chastisement on the Day of Judgment will be doubled to him, and he will dwell therein in ignominy, Unless he repents, believes, and works righteous deeds, for Allah will change the evil of such persons into good, and Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful, And whoever repents and does good has truly turned to Allah in repentance;-(25:68-71)

In this context, just consider when both parties involved in adultery voluntarily come forward and confess for their sins. Is it not a true repentance? Why do we want to punish them? They should be considered as role models of the society for volundarily coming forward and confessing their sin. But to stone them to death is contrary to the spirit of the Quran.

We are overlooking forgiveness aspects in the Quran. Today while enforcement of Islamic Laws the tendency is to be as harsh as possible. Look at the following verses from Quran;

“Those who launch a charge against chaste women and do not bring four witnesses should be punished with eighty lashes, and their testimony should not be accepted afterwards: except for those who repent thereafter and mend (their conduct). For Allah is oft-forgiving, most merciful”. - (24:4)

The male thief, and the female thief, you shall cut their hands as a punishment for their crime, and to serve as a deterrent from God. God is Almighty, Wise. If one repents after committing this crime, and reforms, God redeems him. God is Forgiver, Merciful.(5:38)

Also, classical Islamic jurisprudence interprets the Qur'anic evidentiary rule of testimony to require the actual witnessing of penetration during sexual intercourse and nothing less. The important question is why we put such impossible evidentiary requirements on a criminal offence for which the requirements have been clearly prescribed by God. By limiting conviction to only those cases where four individuals actually saw penetration take place, the crime will realistically punishable only if the two parties are committing the act in the public, in the nude. Even if four witnesses actually saw a couple having sex, but under a coverlet for example, this testimony would not only fail to support a Zina charge, but these witnesses would also be liable for slander! Furthermore, if any eyewitness testimony is obtained by violating a defendant’s privacy, it is inadmissible! It is like turning upside down Islamic law.

Wassalam

[salman]

^brother, now that you have opened a bit, you seem to have a lot more serious issues then your original argument. It would be better for everyone, insha'Allah, if you do two things:

1 - kind of tell us about your Islamic background, what kind of methodology do you hold onto

2 - take your arguments against general understanding of the scholars about zina and all that in another thread

brother, I would advise you to not to speak without knowledge as it is a very dangerous matter. If you want follow the Qur'an then follow it completely and do not pick and choose to support your arguments. We are awam (laypeople), who have no knowledge of Islam, and by the Command of Allah we are obliged to ask the people of knowledge (the scholars of Islam). By no mean I am saying that they are perfect, but they know what they are talking about. It is not a good adab, neither needed, nor our job to criticize and question understanding of Islamic scholars based on our few observations when we hardly have any knowledge about Islam.

Most of your questions and confusion is raised due to lack of knowledge and some of them have already been clarified but due to you lack of ilm the doubts remain. I can answer your concerns and arguments but I will not. I will ask the more knowledgeable brothers to handle this as they have more ilm than me and can adopt best of adab to answer you. Please have sabr and wait for Ustad Ayman, I am sure he will clarify this for you, insha'Allah, as soon as he gets a chance

[optimist]

Originally Posted by salman

^brother, now that you have opened a bit, you seem to have a lot more serious issues then your original argument. It would be better for everyone, insha'Allah, if you do two things:

1 - kind of tell us about your Islamic background, what kind of methodology do you hold onto

2 - take your arguments against general understanding of the scholars about zina and all that in another thread

Salam,

Since you have asked my Islamic backgroud, I will tell you something. I was a student of Islamiya College Santapuran, a leading Islamic institution in south India. I studied there for 4 years. I did not complete the course, which is 7 years. If someone completes this course he will be hounored with title al-Faqih fi al-ddeen. One of the prominent Islamic scholars at present, Kutty Ahmed Kutty was also a student of this college. You will find the reference of this college here Ahmad Kutty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But I choose to leave the institute after I got admission in a law institute. I finished my law studies and I practiced as a lawyer for 5 years, but currently managing the legal issues of a pharmacuetical co.

Well, I will follow your second direction.

brother, I would advise you to not to speak without knowledge as it is a very dangerous matter.

I will never speak without any knowledge or information. I am a lawyer and I am learned to appreciate and acknowledge good reasoning. I am least ashamed to admit myself wrong.

I will ask the more knowledgeable brothers to handle this as they have more ilm than me and can adopt best of adab to answer you. Please have sabr and wait for Ustad Ayman, I am sure he will clarify this for you, insha'Allah, as soon as he gets a chance

There is no problem if you choose to do so. I was only expressing some views based on my level of understanding and reading. May be I am wrong. I always have an open mind. But I believe that I have good reason to conclude as I stated above at the moment. I have come across many examples of women put to great difficulties in pakistan and some other places due to the misuse of some of the provisions of zina laws (especially due to the implementation of pregnancy and confession as a ground for punishment for zina).

wassalam

[Assad]

:

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.”

You say that you dont understand why Umar r.a. feared people when he only feared Allah and His Messenger. As I said before that it was his fear for Allah and His Messenger that he didnt add anything to Quran and let it remain as Prophet SAW left it.

Another reason is that If Umar r.a. would have added this Ayah which Prophet didnt included than people would have said that Rajm is not part of Shariah and it is Umar who added it in the Quran and therefore they may give up the punishment of Rajm as Umar r.a. has said in another authentic hadith:

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: 'Umar said, "I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, ‘We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book,' and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses or pregnancy or confession." Sufyan added, "I have memorized this narration in this way." 'Umar added, "Surely Allah's Apostle carried out the penalty of Rajam, and so did we after him." (5)

So the hypocrites would have gotten a chance to tag Umar r.a as the responsible one for Rajm but rather Rajam is a punishment as ordained by Allah SWT.

I dont see any confusion here, Inauzubuillah, Umar r.a. was not shaking with fear which is what you may be thinking.

[optimist]

Originally Posted by Acid

:

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.”

You say that you dont understand why Umar r.a. feared people when he only feared Allah and His Messenger. As I said before that it was his fear for Allah and His Messenger that he didnt add anything to Quran and let it remain as Prophet SAW left it..

Salam,

I also agree with you it was the fear of Allah and his messenger that Umar (r) did not add anything to Quran, not fear of the people.

Another reason is that If Umar r.a. would have added this Ayah which Prophet didnt included than people would have said that Rajm is not part of Shariah and it is Umar who added it in the Quran and therefore they may give up the punishment of Rajm as Umar r.a. has said in another authentic hadith:

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: 'Umar said, "I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, ‘We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book,' and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses or pregnancy or confession." Sufyan added, "I have memorized this narration in this way." 'Umar added, "Surely Allah's Apostle carried out the penalty of Rajam, and so did we after him." (5)

The possibility is not giving up the punishment. If Umar (r) had done so, people would have rejected Umar and labelled him as not a Muslim for adding something to the Quran which is not supposed to be there and also for directly violating an order of the prophet. They would have revolted against Umar and forcibly made him remove the verse from the Quran. (According to the initial hadith, this was what Umar feared.....("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.”).

Wassalam

[TheBoxer]

POST DELETED: Your post was totally irrelevant to the topic in discussion. Please dont discuss irrelevant topic.