> Quran and Hadith

[TheBoxer]

Okay, originally I had posted these questions in the thread about the Alleged Missing Qur'anic Verse of Rajam but someone rudely deleted it because he felt it was not relevant to the topic.

I have decided to repost my questions in a new thread since I can't seem to find an original thread where I can post them without ticking someone off. I really hope someone can help me with this. No, I am not looking for a debate--I'm simply seeking answers.

1. If the Quran is the verbatim words of Allah, then what is the Hadith in relation to the words of Allah?

2. Is the Quran the final authority on something, or can the Hadith be considered the final authority?

3. In the following hadith, what does it mean "he did not leave anything except what is between the two bindings of the Quran"? Didn't he leave the Sunnah and his instructions on how to pray, perform ablutions, etc.?

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 61, Number 537:

Narrated 'Abdul 'Aziz bin Rufai': Shaddad bin Ma'qil and I entered upon Ibn 'Abbas. Shaddad bin Ma'qil asked him, "Did the Prophet leave anything (besides the Qur'an)?" He replied. "He did not leave anything except what is Between the two bindings (of the Qur'an)." Then we visited Muhammad bin Al-Hanafiyya and asked him (the same question). He replied, "The Prophet did not leave except what is between the bindings (of the Qur'an)."

4. In the following ahadith, did 'Umar mean that the verse of stoning was included in the Quran or it was sent down separate from it?

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 817:

'Umar said:"...Allah sent Muhammad with the Truth and revealed the Holy Book to him, and among what Allah revealed, was the Verse of the Rajam (the stoning of married person (male & female) who commits illegal sexual intercourse, and we did recite this Verse and understood and memorized it. Allah's Apostle did carry out the punishment of stoning and so did we after him. I am afraid that after a long time has passed, somebody will say, 'By Allah, we do not find the Verse of the Rajam in Allah's Book,' and thus they will go astray by leaving an obligation which Allah has revealed. And the punishment of the Rajam is to be inflicted to any married person (male & female), who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if the required evidence is available or there is conception or confession..."

Sahih Muslim, Book 017, Number 4194:

'Abdullah b. 'Abbas reported that 'Umar b. Khattab sat on the pulpit of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: Verily Allah sent Muhammad (may peace be upon him) with truth and He sent down the Book upon him, and the verse of stoning was included in what was sent down to him. We recited it, retained it in our memory and understood it. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) awarded the punishment of stoning to death (to the married adulterer and adulteress) and, after him, we also awarded the punishment of stoning, I am afraid that with the lapse of time, the people (may forget it) and may say: We do not find the punishment of stoning in the Book of Allah, and thus go astray by abandoning this duty prescribed by Allah. Stoning is a duty laid down in Allah's Book for married men and women who commit adultery when proof is established, or it there is pregnancy, or a confession.

5. If the Quran says that the ordained, prescribed punishment for adultery is 100 lashes, then why did Muhammad and his Companions mete out the punishment of stoning for adultery?

6. Can the Hadith abrogate the Quran since the Quran does not indicate that Surah An-Noor, Ayah 2 was abrogated?

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. 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. (Quran 24:1-2)

Thanks,

TheBoxer

[salman]

Originally Posted by TheBoxer

1. If the Quran is the verbatim words of Allah, then what is the Hadith in relation to the words of Allah?

the word hadith linguistically means saying of someone hence it is divided in many categories so it depends which one you are talking about.

1 - Ahadith Qudsi - Direct words of Allah related by the Prophet
2 - Ahadith of Prophet (sal-allahu alayhi wa sallam) are divided into two categories: one pertaining to religion and other worldly matters. For more on this refer to the stick thread in this section on Sunnah of Prophet (sal-allahu alayhi wa salalm). The ahadith pretianing to religious matters are revelation from Allah and the evidence for this is found in numerous ayaat of the Qur'an.
3 - Ahadith of the Salaf (the companions and two generations after them) are known as athaar (narrations).

Originally Posted by TheBoxer

2. Is the Quran the final authority on something, or can the Hadith be considered the final authority?

since they both are wahy (revelation) from Allah so they both can be authority on finalizing a ruling. The ahadith can elaborate, add or introduce new rulings (i.e., ruling of killing an apostate, how to pray, stoning married adulterer).

Can a hadith abrogate a ruling found in the Qur'an? I do not know so I will remain silent.

Originally Posted by TheBoxer

3. In the following hadith, what does it mean "he did not leave anything except what is between the two bindings of the Quran"? Didn't he leave the Sunnah and his instructions on how to pray, perform ablutions, etc.?

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 61, Number 537:

Narrated 'Abdul 'Aziz bin Rufai': Shaddad bin Ma'qil and I entered upon Ibn 'Abbas. Shaddad bin Ma'qil asked him, "Did the Prophet leave anything (besides the Qur'an)?" He replied. "He did not leave anything except what is Between the two bindings (of the Qur'an)." Then we visited Muhammad bin Al-Hanafiyya and asked him (the same question). He replied, "The Prophet did not leave except what is between the bindings (of the Qur'an)."

the context here is referring to the preservation of the Qur'an and not Islamic sources.

Originally Posted by TheBoxer

4. In the following ahadith, did 'Umar mean that the verse of stoning was included in the Quran or it was sent down separate from it?

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 817:

'Umar said:"...Allah sent Muhammad with the Truth and revealed the Holy Book to him, and among what Allah revealed, was the Verse of the Rajam (the stoning of married person (male & female) who commits illegal sexual intercourse, and we did recite this Verse and understood and memorized it. Allah's Apostle did carry out the punishment of stoning and so did we after him. I am afraid that after a long time has passed, somebody will say, 'By Allah, we do not find the Verse of the Rajam in Allah's Book,' and thus they will go astray by leaving an obligation which Allah has revealed. And the punishment of the Rajam is to be inflicted to any married person (male & female), who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if the required evidence is available or there is conception or confession..."

Sahih Muslim, Book 017, Number 4194:

'Abdullah b. 'Abbas reported that 'Umar b. Khattab sat on the pulpit of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: Verily Allah sent Muhammad (may peace be upon him) with truth and He sent down the Book upon him, and the verse of stoning was included in what was sent down to him. We recited it, retained it in our memory and understood it. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) awarded the punishment of stoning to death (to the married adulterer and adulteress) and, after him, we also awarded the punishment of stoning, I am afraid that with the lapse of time, the people (may forget it) and may say: We do not find the punishment of stoning in the Book of Allah, and thus go astray by abandoning this duty prescribed by Allah. Stoning is a duty laid down in Allah's Book for married men and women who commit adultery when proof is established, or it there is pregnancy, or a confession.

There is a whole science of abrogation and abrogated and it is quite lengthy. In simple words, this ayah was originally part of the Qur'an but later on its recitation was abrogated; however, its ruling remained. Thus, we act upon the ruling and it is not found in the Qur'an as its recitation was abrogated.

Originally Posted by TheBoxer

5. If the Quran says that the ordained, prescribed punishment for adultery is 100 lashes, then why did Muhammad and his Companions mete out the punishment of stoning for adultery?

6. Can the Hadith abrogate the Quran since the Quran does not indicate that Surah An-Noor, Ayah 2 was abrogated?

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. 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. (Quran 24:1-2)

see above

[TheBoxer]

salman,

You wrote:

There is a whole science of abrogation and abrogated and it is quite lengthy. In simple words, this ayah was originally part of the Qur'an but later on its recitation was abrogated; however, its ruling remained. Thus, we act upon the ruling and it is not found in the Qur'an as its recitation was abrogated.

So, what you are saying is that the Verse of Rajam was originally a part of the Quran, but it was later removed? However, even though it was removed, stoning remains?

Okay, to be perfectly honest with you, I'm confused.

So let's say in 622 AD Allah sent the Verse of Rajam in the Quran. Muhammad learned it from Gabriel and recited it to his Companions so that they might also memorize it. Then, "its recitation was abrogated"? What does that mean? Why would a recitation be abrogated but its ruling remain? So, Allah told Muhammad to remove the verse from the Quran, but to keep stoning adulterers?

The reason this doesn't make sense is because the recitation of 24:2 was not abrogated and yet its ruling is abrogated, and the recitation of the Verse of Rajam was abrogated (in fact, it was completely removed from the Quran), and yet its ruling is not abrogated.

Do you see why I'm confused?

~TheBoxer

[salman]

Originally Posted by TheBoxer

So, what you are saying is that the Verse of Rajam was originally a part of the Quran, but it was later removed? However, even though it was removed, stoning remains?

yes, the reason why the ruling remained is because the Messenger of Allah (sal-allahu alayhi wa sallam) carried out the hadd (punishment) and this is found in the authentic narrations. In addition, there is ijmaa among the companions (peace be upon them) that the recitation was abrogated but the ruling remained.

Originally Posted by TheBoxer

So let's say in 622 AD Allah sent the Verse of Rajam in the Quran. Muhammad learned it from Gabriel and recited it to his Companions so that they might also memorize it. Then, "its recitation was abrogated"? What does that mean? Why would a recitation be abrogated but its ruling remain? So, Allah told Muhammad to remove the verse from the Quran, but to keep stoning adulterers?

yes and this is how Allah has ordained. If you have problem how He does things then take it with Him. As it has been told to you, the sahih sunnah of the Prophet (sal-allahu alayhi wa sallam) in religious matters is also wahy from Allah.

Originally Posted by TheBoxer

The reason this doesn't make sense is because the recitation of 24:2 was not abrogated and yet its ruling is abrogated, and the recitation of the Verse of Rajam was abrogated (in fact, it was completely removed from the Quran), and yet its ruling is not abrogated.

1 - The Qur'an literally means the recital. Whatever is in the Qur'an, it means this is what we suppose to recite and it is part of the final completed Qur'an. If recitation is abrogated, then it means it is not longer part of the final completed Qur'an. So, it is wrong to make a distinction between recitation abrogated and completely removed from the Qur'an.

2 - Just because ruling was abrogated does not automatically mean that its recitation should have been abrogated as well. and just because the recitation was abrogated does not atuomatically mean that its ruling should had been abrogated as well.

3 - Why it is like this? Allahu A'lam - Allah knows best; I do not know maybe the scholars have deduces some reasoning from some shari' evidence but I am not aware of any. All I know is that Allah says in the Qur'an that sometime He replaces with something better.

I can understand your confusion because many Muslims are sometime confused as well. However, this is how Allah has chosen for us.

[salman]

if you want to learn more about this, check the sticky thread I just made: Evidences for abrogation (Naskh) in the Quran and Sunnah

I will try to find more material on this and post, insha'Allah

[TheBoxer]

More questions:
　
**Off-topic and answered questions removed**
　
3. In the following verse, does this mean that the best of Muslims are those who believe in the entire Quran?
　
He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding. (Quran 3:7)
　
4. If Muslims choose to believe in the Hadith over the Quran, then doesn't this weaken the authority of the Quran?

5. Does a Muslim's entire faith rests upon the Quran or upon Muhammad's words and actions?

~TheBoxer

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by TheBoxer

Okay, originally I had posted these questions in the thread about the Alleged Missing Qur'anic Verse of Rajam but someone rudely deleted it because he felt it was not relevant to the topic.

Im sorry for that. However, why don;t you do what everyone else does. If they have an inquiry, then make an entire thread dedicated to that issue for discussion, plain and simple

I have decided to repost my questions in a new thread since I can't seem to find an original thread where I can post them without ticking someone off. I really hope someone can help me with this. No, I am not looking for a debate--I'm simply seeking answers.

IF that is your intent, then when answers are presented, it would cease further inquiry of the same thing. Usually thats how the world operates when the actions are in sync with that specific intention.

1. If the Quran is the verbatim words of Allah, then what is the Hadith in relation to the words of Allah?

Qur'an is the literal kalaam (speech) of Allah. That means it is Allah Himself who uttered it. Hadeeth is the inspiration from Allah that guides Muhammad in his speech, actions, and approvals. In other words, when it comes to religious guidance, whatever he says is under the scrutiny and inspiration from Allah, his actions likewise, and if he remains silent or approves something, then Allah not correcting him is an evidence of that approval having sanction by Allah.

2. Is the Quran the final authority on something, or can the Hadith be considered the final authority?

The Qur'an is the pillar of all pillars. So while the Qur'an is the source of all souces, the Qur'an is in more need of the sunnah than the sunnah is in need of the Qur'an. WHY? because it is the sunnah that explains what the Qur'an is saying.

The Qur'an is over hadeeth in many matters, but in terms of legal authority, the Qur'an and Hadeeth hold equal authority because whatever the Messenger warns with, commands, or prohibits, it is as if Allah Himself has done so.

3. In the following hadith, what does it mean "he did not leave anything except what is between the two bindings of the Quran"? Didn't he leave the Sunnah and his instructions on how to pray, perform ablutions, etc.?

he did. In another hadeeth the messenger of Allah told his companions
"I have left you upon two things, and your will never go astray without it" and it has a multiplicity of chains.

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 61, Number 537:

Narrated 'Abdul 'Aziz bin Rufai': Shaddad bin Ma'qil and I entered upon Ibn 'Abbas. Shaddad bin Ma'qil asked him, "Did the Prophet leave anything (besides the Qur'an)?" He replied. "He did not leave anything except what is Between the two bindings (of the Qur'an)." Then we visited Muhammad bin Al-Hanafiyya and asked him (the same question). He replied, "The Prophet did not leave except what is between the bindings (of the Qur'an)."

1. firstly, the hadeeth was categorized as part of the virtues of the Qur'an.
2. secondly the hadeeth is actually NOT a hadeeth. It is an athar. Hadeeth are hadeeth when they are ascribed to the prophet. However, narrations that only link to a companion is telling us that it is not a hadeeth of the prophet, but a statement of a companion. HOwever, in spite of the fact that it is not a hadeeth, we use the statements, the narrations of the companions as a tool to understand the overall mission of the prophet because they were with him and they were the direct recipients of the revelation.

This statement is actually the sayings of the companions. The reason why they stated this statement was to refute the idea that things can be added into the Qur'an.

here is the reason why this saying of the companions came about.

Imam Wahedi (May Allah have mercy on him) comments on this hadith: “By recording this hadith, Hadhrat Imam al-Bukhari (May Allah have mercy on him) has rejected the views of those Shias, who say that the Qur’an had a verse about Hadhrat Ali (May Allah be pleased with him) being the [first] khalifa and other companions (e.g. ‘Uthman, Abou Bakr, ‘Umar (May Allah be pleased with them all)) didn’t include it in the final compilation of the Qur’an. When Prophet's (peace be upon him) cousin, 'Abdullah Ibn 'Abbas and Ali's son Muhammad bin Al-Hanafiyya (May Allah be pleased with them all) didn't know about such tales/stories, then how can these people claim it"

In other words, Imaam al-Bukharee used this hadeeth (linguistically hadeeth means news, and in the early stage of the hadeeth preservers, hadeeth was applicable to whatever the prophet said or whatever he companins said, but later in the fourth century, the scholars liked to differentiate hadeeth of the prophet and hadeeth of the companions, so they substituted words of the companions as "aathaar" or "khabr" denoting that it was a statement of a companion and NOT the prophet alaihi salatu salam) a a proof against the shi'a because the shi'a tried to add and subtract versus from the Qur'an. The reason why it utterly refutes them is because in the shi'ite creed, they almost deify the family of the prophet and they render his family is that source of all Islamic leadership. The reason why he quoted this hadeeth is because the one who narrated it is "Muhammad ibn Hanafiyyah", the son of Ali signifying that not even the family of the prophet is aware of this invented dialectic of yours (meaning the shi'a)

4. In the following ahadith, did 'Umar mean that the verse of stoning was included in the Quran or it was sent down separate from it?

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 817:

'Umar said:"...Allah sent Muhammad with the Truth and revealed the Holy Book to him, and among what Allah revealed, was the Verse of the Rajam (the stoning of married person (male & female) who commits illegal sexual intercourse, and we did recite this Verse and understood and memorized it. Allah's Apostle did carry out the punishment of stoning and so did we after him. I am afraid that after a long time has passed, somebody will say, 'By Allah, we do not find the Verse of the Rajam in Allah's Book,' and thus they will go astray by leaving an obligation which Allah has revealed. And the punishment of the Rajam is to be inflicted to any married person (male & female), who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if the required evidence is available or there is conception or confession..."

Sahih Muslim, Book 017, Number 4194:

'Abdullah b. 'Abbas reported that 'Umar b. Khattab sat on the pulpit of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: Verily Allah sent Muhammad (may peace be upon him) with truth and He sent down the Book upon him, and the verse of stoning was included in what was sent down to him. We recited it, retained it in our memory and understood it. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) awarded the punishment of stoning to death (to the married adulterer and adulteress) and, after him, we also awarded the punishment of stoning, I am afraid that with the lapse of time, the people (may forget it) and may say: We do not find the punishment of stoning in the Book of Allah, and thus go astray by abandoning this duty prescribed by Allah. Stoning is a duty laid down in Allah's Book for married men and women who commit adultery when proof is established, or it there is pregnancy, or a confession.

NO, he meant that it was INCLUDED in it and not seperate, but later was abrogated. There are three types of abrogation with regards to the Qur'an
1. abrogation of the ruling and the recitation (recitation meaning part of the Qur'an since the Qur'an is recited)
2. abrogation of the ruling but NOT the recitation
3. abrogation of the recitation but NOT the ruling

the verse of stoning fell into the third category of abrogation above, because while it was ommitted from being recited (i.e. being part of the Qur'an). its being aborgated of recitation did not abrogate the actual ruling, meaning that it was still preserved in though it was not recited anymore.

5. If the Quran says that the ordained, prescribed punishment for adultery is 100 lashes, then why did Muhammad and his Companions mete out the punishment of stoning for adultery?

because that verse was talking about the fornicator, not the adulterer. the punishment for the one who has fornicated is 100 lashes, and the one who is married and does it has committed adultery so the more severer punishment was to preserve the sanctity of marraige.

6. Can the Hadith abrogate the Quran since the Quran does not indicate that Surah An-Noor, Ayah 2 was abrogated?

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. 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. (Quran 24:1-2)

some scholars opined that sunnah in hadeeth can abrogate qur'an, and some say it can't. there is a scholarly difference of opinion on it. Despite of this difference, the hadeeth is not an abrogation of this verse. WHY? because people get confused between abrogation and "takhsees" i.e. specification,

abrogation occurs when the subject matter completely defies itself in a different text on the exact same thing.

however, when it is not the same thing, then it is understood that the specific information is a specification of the general text.

in other words, When that verse is understood in light of the hadeeth of stoning, it is understood that this hadeeth specified that when the Qur'an prescribed lashing, it was for the fornicator and it was not pinpointing the fornicator AND the adulterer. In other words, the hadeeth is a "specification" of the general verse.

[TheBoxer]

al-boriqee,
　
You wrote:

Qur'an is the literal kalaam (speech) of Allah. That means it is Allah Himself who uttered it. Hadeeth is the inspiration from Allah that guides Muhammad in his speech, actions, and approvals. In other words, when it comes to religious guidance, whatever he says is under the scrutiny and inspiration from Allah, his actions likewise, and if he remains silent or approves something, then Allah not correcting him is an evidence of that approval having sanction by Allah.

HOW did Allah give inspiration to Muhammad if it is not through Gabriel? What mode of communication did He use? Did Allah put throughts in Muhammad's head, and if so, then wouldn't those thoughts also be the speech of Allah?

The Qur'an is the pillar of all pillars. So while the Qur'an is the source of all souces, the Qur'an is in more need of the sunnah than the sunnah is in need of the Qur'an. WHY? because it is the sunnah that explains what the Qur'an is saying.

The Qur'an is over hadeeth in many matters, but in terms of legal authority, the Qur'an and Hadeeth hold equal authority because whatever the Messenger warns with, commands, or prohibits, it is as if Allah Himself has done so.

So, the literal speech of Allah needs Muhammad's speech and actions more than Muhammad's speech and actions need the literal speech of Allah?

Did I understand that correctly?

So, do we consider Allah's literal speech in 24:2 abrogated by Muhammad's actions in the hadeeth?

he did. In another hadeeth the messenger of Allah told his companions
"I have left you upon two things, and your will never go astray without it" and it has a multiplicity of chains.

So, is that hadeeth I quoted wrong?

1. firstly, the hadeeth was categorized as part of the virtues of the Qur'an.
2. secondly the hadeeth is actually NOT a hadeeth. It is an athar. Hadeeth are hadeeth when they are ascribed to the prophet. However, narrations that only link to a companion is telling us that it is not a hadeeth of the prophet, but a statement of a companion. HOwever, in spite of the fact that it is not a hadeeth, we use the statements, the narrations of the companions as a tool to understand the overall mission of the prophet because they were with him and they were the direct recipients of the revelation.

1. Why does it matter how fallible men catagorized it?

2. Okay, so that athar is part of the Sahih Bukhari Hadith, however, it is not really a Hadith and so we should not consider it to be 100% truthful? In other words, the people who said Muhammad left only what was in the Quran were wrong because he left something else--the sunnah?

But, I think I get what you're saying.

NO, he meant that it was INCLUDED in it and not seperate, but later was abrogated. There are three types of abrogation with regards to the Qur'an
1. abrogation of the ruling and the recitation (recitation meaning part of the Qur'an since the Qur'an is recited)
2. abrogation of the ruling but NOT the recitation
3. abrogation of the recitation but NOT the ruling
the verse of stoning fell into the third category of abrogation above, because while it was ommitted from being recited (i.e. being part of the Qur'an). its being aborgated of recitation did not abrogate the actual ruling, meaning that it was still preserved in though it was not recited anymore.

Can you explain to me how this is at all logical considering Allah only promised to preserve the Quran, and it was up to scholars like Bukhari and Muslim to go around searching for and analyzing ahadith?

Why preserve the recitation of something, but not the ruling? And why abrogate the recitation of something and yet preserve its ruling?

because that verse was talking about the fornicator, not the adulterer. the punishment for the one who has fornicated is 100 lashes, and the one who is married and does it has committed adultery so the more severer punishment was to preserve the sanctity of marraige.

But in Islam, the definition of adultery means to cheat on one's spouse. It has nothing to do with the marital status of the person you cheated with. This is confirmed by the Sahih Hadith where a man was flogged for sleeping with a woman who he was not married to, but the woman was stoned for cheating on her husband. The man was guilty of fornication, the woman guilty of adultery.

And the Quran specifically states that the punishment for fornication and adultery is 100 lashes.

some scholars opined that sunnah in hadeeth can abrogate qur'an, and some say it can't. there is a scholarly difference of opinion on it. Despite of this difference, the hadeeth is not an abrogation of this verse. WHY? because people get confused between abrogation and "takhsees" i.e. specification,

abrogation occurs when the subject matter completely defies itself in a different text on the exact same thing.

however, when it is not the same thing, then it is understood that the specific information is a specification of the general text.

in other words, When that verse is understood in light of the hadeeth of stoning, it is understood that this hadeeth specified that when the Qur'an prescribed lashing, it was for the fornicator and it was not pinpointing the fornicator AND the adulterer. In other words, the hadeeth is a "specification" of the general verse.

But the Islamic definition of adultery seems to make this all the more confusing.

The Quran says "the man AND woman guilty of adultery OR fornication." Which seems to imply that the two people involved in the affair are either guilty of fornication or guilty of adultery. However, the hadith create a different scenario where one person can be guilty of adultery whereas the other person involved is only guilty of fornication.

That's why I'm having a really hard time understanding the stoning punishment of adultery in the light of the Quran. Can you clarify this for me?

~TheBoxer

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by TheBoxer

al-boriqee,
　
You wrote:

HOW did Allah give inspiration to Muhammad if it is not through Gabriel?

there are 40 modalities of prophethood. In other words, there are 40 modes in which Allah interacts with a chosen person. that chosen is a prophet. The first and lowest level is dreams. The dreams of the righteous are true. When prophets receive them, it is a form of inspiration and revelation. there are many levels higher than this, and the highest level is speaking to Allah directly. The only two that we know of for sure who spoke with Him personally were Moses (on Mount tur where Allah Himself was speaking to him directly), and Prophet Muhammad when he was raised to the heavens. Other prophets, he strengthened them with ar-Ruh (i.e. the spirit) which is none other than Gabriel, and this was for all the prophets. With Jesus in particular, Allah strengthened him with Gabriel more so than the rest.

Gabriel is the inter mediator between the prophet and Allah in terms of a law or revelation of a law.

What mode of communication did He use?

we don;t know al lthe modalities. I have to search what forms of communication are considered as revelation.

Did Allah put throughts in Muhammad's head, and if so, then wouldn't those thoughts also be the speech of Allah?

Inspiring and speaking is different. I can inspire someone to partake in a mission even though I myself did not literally state him to partake in a mission. Speech of Allah is when Allah actually says a thing i.e. when He actually Speaks.

So, the literal speech of Allah needs Muhammad's speech and actions more than Muhammad's speech and actions need the literal speech of Allah? Did I understand that correctly?

Not exactly
its more like
"Muhammad speech and actions IS Allah's speech PUT INTO ACTION"

this is why Muhammad was described as a walking Qur'an.

So, do we consider Allah's literal speech in 24:2 abrogated by Muhammad's actions in the hadeeth?

No, because it is not a case of abrogation, it is a case of specification. Abrogation is when two text, in legal issues, COLLIDE in meaning with each other. HOWEVER, when one is general and one is more specific, then it becomes an issue of specification, and not one of abrogation because the text do not COLLIDE against each other in meaning

So, is that hadeeth I quoted wrong?

No, rather that hadeeth you quoted has a particular context i.e. it was revealed to signify that no one can add or subtract from the Qur'an, and not that Allah or His Messenger abrogated an issue.

1. Why does it matter how fallible men catagorized it?

it does matter, because they were people who understood what place the narration is to be utilized. This is called "fiqh" i.e. understanding. If one is deprived of fiqh, one will be loosely quoting hadeeth that either have no relevance to a particular point a person is making, such as what you did, o other blunders that will be too exhaustive for me to mention here.

2. Okay, so that athar is part of the Sahih Bukhari Hadith, however, it is not really a Hadith and so we should not consider it to be 100% truthful?

wrong. the ascription to a person does not have a connection on the "truthfulness aspect" on a matter. All it means is that since it is not a literal hadeeth of the prophet, it is not a revelation, but rather it is a companions understanding of an issue, and their understanding is integral in Islam because their understanding is the criterion for determining actual Islam from fake Islam.

In other words, the people who said Muhammad left only what was in the Quran were wrong because he left something else--the sunnah?

No. This is the perfect example of quiting a hadeeth without having "fiqh". When the two companions stated this, they did not have in mind hte issue of the sunnah, but rather their focus was to express that nobody could interpolate into the Qur'an or delete from the Qur'an. That is how their statement is to be viewed, and not that they were refuting the idea of sunnah being the second source of Islam.

But, I think I get what you're saying.

I hope so.

Can you explain to me how this is at all logical considering Allah only promised to preserve the Quran, and it was up to scholars like Bukhari and Muslim to go around searching for and analyzing ahadith?

sure.

1. Allah's preservation of the Qur'an has nothing to do with the three forms of abrogation that Allah has performed or the Messenger. So the three types of abrogation have nothing to do with analyzing hadeeth.
2. Allah did not promise to preserve the "Qur'an". In the Qur'an, Allah promised to preserve "adh-Dhikr" which means the entirety of the reminder given to Muhammad, the full guidance. That means both the Qur'an, and His Sunnah

Why preserve the recitation of something, but not the ruling? And why abrogate the recitation of something and yet preserve its ruling?

My initial response would be "to test people". Allah id not in need of anything, but He test people in order for the people to see where they end up. In this life, people are divided into two categories.
1. people who "hear and obey"
2. people who do not hear and obey

Allah is with and loves those who simply submit, by hearing and obeying. In all of religion, in the methodology of the prophets, the basic premise for testing the people is to see their level of submission, if they hear and obey, or if they have deficiencies, or if they straight out disregard hearing and obeying.

So regarding this issue, we don't really know God's reasoning. We don;t know His reasoning for a lot of judgments of His, but we obey them as an indication of faith, since faith in full expression is manifested through the actions of one's limbs.

But in Islam, the definition of adultery means to cheat on one's spouse.

exactly, the verse did not speak about the one who performs the act while married, rather it was general by saying whoever does it, give them 100 stripes. So what the hadeeth does is that it CLARIFIES the situations of the act committed.

It has nothing to do with the marital status of the person you cheated with.

Of course. we are talking about the perpetrator. If the man was married and he made adultery with a women who was not married, then she gets stripes and he gets stoned. Likewise, if the situation is vice versa, she gets stoned and he gets whipped.

This is confirmed by the Sahih Hadith where a man was flogged for sleeping with a woman who he was not married to, but the woman was stoned for cheating on her husband. The man was guilty of fornication, the woman guilty of adultery.

Of course. so what does this have to do with the subject. There is nothing at odds here.

And the Quran specifically states that the punishment for fornication and adultery is 100 lashes.

But the Islamic definition of adultery seems to make this all the more confusing.

The Quran says "the man AND woman guilty of adultery OR fornication." Which seems to imply that the two people involved in the affair are either guilty of fornication or guilty of adultery.

Wrong. The Qur'an does not say "guilty of fornication OR adultery" it merely says, if the man ANd women is guilty of "ZINA". The translation was wrong. And even when the translator was wrong, he did not intend to imply that the perpetrator is EITHER guilty of one or the other, but that if he does a thing in one state (not being married0 then he is a fornicator) and if he does it in another state (married) then he is an adulterer.

However, the hadith create a different scenario where one person can be guilty of adultery whereas the other person involved is only guilty of fornication.

I don't know, I never heard of this before. maybe you misconstrued something.

That's why I'm having a really hard time understanding the stoning punishment of adultery in the light of the Quran. Can you clarify this for me?

~TheBoxer

okay, its really siimple

the Qur'an states

The fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not pity withhold you in their case, in a punishment prescribed by Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment".
( سورة النور , An-Noor, Chapter #24, Verse #2)

This punishment is for unmarried persons guilty of the above crime, but if married persons commit it (illegal sex), the punishment is to stone them to death, according to Allah's Law.

In other words, the translators, the correctness of their translation is seen when they properly translate the arabic as "fornicator" and not "adulterer" and I think that whatever translation you pulled from, because it had adulterer in there, you managed to get befuddled from the truth of the matter linguistically speaking.

[TheBoxer]

al-boriqee,

First off, thanks for answering my questions.
　
Secondly, I'm sure we're straying off-topic, but delving into such matters as these always leads to new topics. If the administrators of this site want to break up my posts into new threads, they're welcome to it however it may make it difficult for new readers to follow the train of thought of myself and of those who are responding to my posts.
　
You wrote:

there are 40 modalities of prophethood. In other words, there are 40 modes in which Allah interacts with a chosen person. that chosen is a prophet. The first and lowest level is dreams. The dreams of the righteous are true. When prophets receive them, it is a form of inspiration and revelation. there are many levels higher than this, and the highest level is speaking to Allah directly. The only two that we know of for sure who spoke with Him personally were Moses (on Mount tur where Allah Himself was speaking to him directly), and Prophet Muhammad when he was raised to the heavens. Other prophets, he strengthened them with ar-Ruh (i.e. the spirit) which is none other than Gabriel, and this was for all the prophets. With Jesus in particular, Allah strengthened him with Gabriel more so than the rest.

Gabriel is the inter mediator between the prophet and Allah in terms of a law or revelation of a law.

So, every time Muhammad had a revelation, it was from Gabriel?

And these modes that don't involve Gabriel, does Allah directly speak to people through dreams? Does he put his words and thoughts into people's heads in the form of dreams? And if so, then doesn't that also constitute the "Word of Allah"?

I guess I'm having difficulty understanding this kalima stuff. I mean, Allah doesn't have vocal chords, and humans made up languages, not Allah, so when he communicates with a created being of light (Gabriel) who then communicates Allah's message to a created being of flesh-and-blood (Muhammad), I guess I'm wondering where this idea of "literal speech of Allah" comes from. Is Allah simply communicating his thoughts and feelings into one being (a angel) who then communicates those thoughts and feelings into another being (a human)? And if Gabriel is not involved, but Allah sends a dream, then isn't that DIRECT communication from Allah himself?

Inspiring and speaking is different. I can inspire someone to partake in a mission even though I myself did not literally state him to partake in a mission. Speech of Allah is when Allah actually says a thing i.e. when He actually Speaks.

Yes, I agree that inspiring and speaking are different. But how does Allah inspire? What does he use to inspire a person since he is completely separate and outside of his creation, is he not? So, if Gabriel is not involved in the communication, then how does Allah "get into" someone's heart and mind and inspire them? And if Allah does not have a mouth, how does he actually speak?

Not exactly
its more like
"Muhammad speech and actions IS Allah's speech PUT INTO ACTION"

this is why Muhammad was described as a walking Qur'an.

So, the Prophet Muhammad was the living Word of Allah?

No, because it is not a case of abrogation, it is a case of specification. Abrogation is when two text, in legal issues, COLLIDE in meaning with each other. HOWEVER, when one is general and one is more specific, then it becomes an issue of specification, and not one of abrogation because the text do not COLLIDE against each other in meaning

But the Quran specifically states that adulterers are to be flogged 100 times and no mercy should be shown in meting out this punishment. It seems to me that a new punishment--DEATH--would be a bit of a collision, don't you think?

No, rather that hadeeth you quoted has a particular context i.e. it was revealed to signify that no one can add or subtract from the Qur'an, and not that Allah or His Messenger abrogated an issue.

So, when using the Quran we must refer to the Hadith for context, and when using the Hadith we must refer to ___ for context?

it does matter, because they were people who understood what place the narration is to be utilized. This is called "fiqh" i.e. understanding. If one is deprived of fiqh, one will be loosely quoting hadeeth that either have no relevance to a particular point a person is making, such as what you did, o other blunders that will be too exhaustive for me to mention here.

Who were "they"?

wrong. the ascription to a person does not have a connection on the "truthfulness aspect" on a matter. All it means is that since it is not a literal hadeeth of the prophet, it is not a revelation, but rather it is a companions understanding of an issue, and their understanding is integral in Islam because their understanding is the criterion for determining actual Islam from fake Islam.

Okay, so basically the Companions' understanding of things is the correct way to go, right?

No. This is the perfect example of quiting a hadeeth without having "fiqh". When the two companions stated this, they did not have in mind hte issue of the sunnah, but rather their focus was to express that nobody could interpolate into the Qur'an or delete from the Qur'an. That is how their statement is to be viewed, and not that they were refuting the idea of sunnah being the second source of Islam.

It just seems an odd way to say it, I guess, but I understand.

sure.

1. Allah's preservation of the Qur'an has nothing to do with the three forms of abrogation that Allah has performed or the Messenger. So the three types of abrogation have nothing to do with analyzing hadeeth.
2. Allah did not promise to preserve the "Qur'an". In the Qur'an, Allah promised to preserve "adh-Dhikr" which means the entirety of the reminder given to Muhammad, the full guidance. That means both the Qur'an, and His Sunnah

Oh, I see. So, in essence, the Companions were nearly prophets as well...at least in how much Islam relied on them?

My initial response would be "to test people". Allah id not in need of anything, but He test people in order for the people to see where they end up. In this life, people are divided into two categories.
1. people who "hear and obey"
2. people who do not hear and obey

What's the point of testing people when you already know what the results would be before the test is even administered?

Allah is with and loves those who simply submit, by hearing and obeying. In all of religion, in the methodology of the prophets, the basic premise for testing the people is to see their level of submission, if they hear and obey, or if they have deficiencies, or if they straight out disregard hearing and obeying.

Not all religions have the basic premise of testing people. Like I said before, testing seems a tad illogical considering the test-giver already knows what score the test taker would get before the test even starts.

So regarding this issue, we don't really know God's reasoning. We don;t know His reasoning for a lot of judgments of His, but we obey them as an indication of faith, since faith in full expression is manifested through the actions of one's limbs.

Why would God expect people to follow rules blindly without any logical reason for doing so? How else is one to know if something is truly from a logical, intelligent Creator or from an illogical, not-so-intelligent human being?

exactly, the verse did not speak about the one who performs the act while married, rather it was general by saying whoever does it, give them 100 stripes. So what the hadeeth does is that it CLARIFIES the situations of the act committed.

But the Quran doesn't say "for adultery or fornication give lashes or stoning." It just says lashes for both sins. Why is clarification necessary here?

Of course. we are talking about the perpetrator. If the man was married and he made adultery with a women who was not married, then she gets stripes and he gets stoned. Likewise, if the situation is vice versa, she gets stoned and he gets whipped.

But BOTH are perpetrators because it takes TWO to tango. The woman could not commit adultery all by herself, now could she? So, shouldn't the man also be held accountable for sleeping with another man's wife rather than just be guilty of fornication? His punishment is the same whether the woman he sleeps with is married or not. That doesn't seem to do much to protect the sanctity of marriage or the respect one man should show another.

Wrong. The Qur'an does not say "guilty of fornication OR adultery" it merely says, if the man ANd women is guilty of "ZINA". The translation was wrong. And even when the translator was wrong, he did not intend to imply that the perpetrator is EITHER guilty of one or the other, but that if he does a thing in one state (not being married0 then he is a fornicator) and if he does it in another state (married) then he is an adulterer...

...okay, its really siimple

the Qur'an states

The fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not pity withhold you in their case, in a punishment prescribed by Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment".
( سورة النور , An-Noor, Chapter #24, Verse #2)

This punishment is for unmarried persons guilty of the above crime, but if married persons commit it (illegal sex), the punishment is to stone them to death, according to Allah's Law.

In other words, the translators, the correctness of their translation is seen when they properly translate the arabic as "fornicator" and not "adulterer" and I think that whatever translation you pulled from, because it had adulterer in there, you managed to get befuddled from the truth of the matter linguistically speaking.

Well, I thought zina could mean adultery or fornication.
　
Salem Al-Hasi from the Reading Islam website - "The meaning of zina (adultery)", September 15, 2002:

The word zina (adultery and fornication), in Islam, can be used in two different, yet related, ways. It can be used as a general term that refers to a general meaning, and as a legal term defining a criminal act that invites punishments and other legal applications.

Zina in its broad meaning indicates any haram (prohibited) act, whether the act was sexual intercourse or a look, talk, touch, or desire that is related or may lead to elicit sexual relations.


The Fatwa Center at Islamweb - Fatwa No. : 83682 - "Definition of Zina", January 1, 2002:

The Zina for which the Had (certain punishment prescribed in Sharia) would be imposed on is penetration of a glans penis into a forbidden vagina. The other acts such as kissing, hugging, and caressing are no doubt among the minor acts of Zina but there is no Had imposed on them. But, doing so is a sin and whoever indulges in that sin would be punished. And also he should make sincere repentance from this sin by giving up it, feeling sorrow for what he has done and asking forgiveness of Allah.
　
Therefore, the translation is not wrong. But either way, it still states that the punishment for zina is lashes. It says nothing about stoning or the need for a greater punishment. In fact, it sounds like Allah thought this was a rather harsh sentence which is why he warned Muslims not compassion prevent them from meting it out.

Are each of these translators wrong?

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. (Yusuf Ali)

The adulterer and the adulteress, scourge ye each one of them (with) a hundred stripes. And let not pity for the twain withhold you from obedience to Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of believers witness their punishment. (Pickthal)

The woman and the man guilty of illegal sexual intercourse, flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not pity withhold you in their case, in a punishment prescribed by Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment. (Hilali/Khan)
　
~TheBoxer