Rajm or Stoning to Death; Is It a Prescription in Islamic Shari'ah?
ABSTRACT
We have discussed the ayah on Zina in October; started discussing its retribution in November; Insha Allah this will be completed in this session.
Mufti Mohammed Shafi endorses Maulana Moudoodi that Rajm is the prescribed punishment for adultery. He makes a long case for it. Well known eminent scholars Dr. Mohammed Asad and Allaamaa Yousuf Ali have made no mention of Stoning to Death (Rajm) in their explanation of the ayah. Nasr, Seyyed Hossein in his Tafseer “The Study Quran” has a long and scholarly critique; the author has taken one by one the evidence and rivaayaats offered in favor of rajm and analysed and dissected them threadbare and has convincingly disproved them. Amin Ahsan Ilahi, an eminent scholar has also dealt with at length on the issue of rajm in classical Urdu. He also has assessed all the rivaayaats quoted in favour of rajm and logically discredited them. He makes a special note that the rivaayat of a Quranic verse prescribing stoning and attributed to Umer bin Khattab is so ludicrous and wild that it pains him even to discuss it; he has done it reluctantly to complete his argument. He still declares that he believes stoning is one of the options available in our Shari’ah. Javed Ahmed Ghamdi, scholar, researcher and academician has not mentioned at all about rajm in his tafseer of this ayah. However he has emphasized that lashing is the maximum punishment for adultery and fornication and makes a good case for all sorts of leniency in implementing it, if conditions demand. Sayyid Qutb in his great Tafseer declares stoning as the punishment of adultery. He accepts upfront that our Holy Prophet had ordered this punishment and interprets the ayah accordingly. He is putting the rivaayat above the Quran; a totally human effort with all the weaknesses, limitations and impediments is placed above the plain and clear words of Allah Ta'aala Subhaanahoo conveyed to us under Divine guarantee for its protection. Our Eemaan demands it should be other way round. I suggest to my Brothers and Sisters in Islam and strongly advise my children and grand children to think and ponder on this attitude very very carefully. This particular misconception of equating hadith with sunnah is responsible for many controversies and distortions in our Deen. Sunnah is the example of our Holy Prophet, his words and deeds played out over twenty two years in early seventh century. Obeying his sunnah is mandatory for every Muslim by consensus. Hadith on the other hand was compiled two hundred years after the demise of the Holy Prophet in the ninth century. It is about the words of a Sahaabaa referring to some action or statement of their Ideal and Hero whom they adored, almost worshipped (do not take it literally, please). These words of the sahaabaa, on matters of great import or really trivial, travelled by the word of mouth for the next two centuries till its compilation in the ninth century. This valuable literature has to be critically scrutinized before acceptance. Despite the exemplary efforts, sagacity and perseverance of our outstanding Muhaddesins the hadith literature is full of fake entries along with controversial, contradictory and multiple versions. Many of the popular and generally accepted ahaadith have been found to be erroneous by scholars and researchers like Javed Ahmed Ghamdi. Because of this trend perhaps, our Noble Prophet has stated that any body who attributes a wrong statement to him will find his place in Hell. There are very few ahaadith from our supreme and outstanding leaders Abu Bakr and Umer; they did not want to take any chances. On the other hand, Abu Huraira opted to go all out for it.
Confused? It is very baffling, indeed. Eight tafaaseer have been consulted: Three in favour of rajm; one rejects all rivayaat in favor of rajm but supports rajm; one against rajm; three make no mention of rajm at all. Anyhow my vote is ready: rajm or stoning to death has not been recommended in Islamic Shari’ah. I will be happy if I have been of any help to you in deciding your vote.
Let me end with a happy note. In all its apparently strict and strong punishments, Islam maneuvers to avoid them rather than enforce them. Our noble Prophet declares “Spare Muslims the infliction of mandatory punishments wherever possible. If there is any way out for the accused, let him go unpunished. It is better that the ruler errs on the side of pardon, rather than punishment.” ( al-Tirmidhī)
Read ONLY, IF AND WHEN you have time and mood for:
“An Ayah of the Quran for 30 Days” -- December 26, 2016
Choose the section you have time, in the next 30 days to read this ayah:-
Prelude: Recurrent Primary Message 1st. Page
Starting Dua, a note & The Ayah 2nd. Page
A Short Summary: For the Busy Bee Three Pages
The Main Story: Recommended Five Pages
Footnotes: For the Perfectionist Ten Pages
PRELUDE
From the Pen and Perspective of a self-styled PPK Muslim (Proud, Practicing, Knowledgeable) with a humble submission that Islam totally rejects Blind Following BUT vigorously focusses on the Limitations of Pure Human Reasoning..............and clearly and comprehensively AlLAH knows best.
In the beginning of the seventh century C.E., the folks of Mecca and Medina had a fascinatingly unique window: they had direct access to the Heavens through one of their own. They were blessed with a regular stream of Divine counseling and guidelines. Question and answer sessions were part of the program. Even individual questioner was graced by an answer. In the short Introduction to this scheme they were assured that at the end of this twenty-two year project, Divine Directions and Admonitions will continue through the agency of the PEN. The whole discourse has been preserved and archived till eternity under the guarantee of our Lord and Creator. This record in known as the Quran.
It should sound unbelievable but factually appears to be true: Many of our prevalent, widespread and important concepts and opinions about religious matters do not have a basis in the Quran and sometimes even appear to be in obvious conflict with the teachings of the Quran. It would be very educative and helpful to discuss an Ayah once a month to see if it supports or rejects our views and actions in our daily life. I wish and hope this email generates a fruitful interactive discussion.
DUAA’
بِسمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحمٰنِ الرَّحيمِ
In the name of Allah, we praise HIM, seek HIS help and ask for HIS forgiveness. Whosoever Allah guideth none can misguide; whosoever HE allows to fall astray, none can guide him right. We bear witness that there is none worthy of worship but Allah alone and we bear witness that Mohammed, SAW is HIS slave-servant and the Seal of HIS Messengers.
Further, we recall that Allah Ta’aala has declared in HIS Book1
“He granteth wisdom to whom He pleaseth; and he to whom wisdom is granted receiveth indeed a benefit overflowing; but none will grasp the Message (or remember or receive admonition) but men of understanding (or intellect)”
and we also recollect that he has warned us about the day of judgement2
“Then on that day you shall most certainly be questioned about the boons (joy, pleasure).”
We realise, that there cannot be a greater boon or blessing or benefit than wisdom and we wonder if this should be a timely reminder to very many of us sincere and practicing Muslims who use our critical thinking to enhance the mundane for ourselves and our families but resort to compulsory following -- taqleed, doctrine of classical Sunni Islamic Fiqh -- in matters religion.
(NOTE: I have filtered out the proofs and details into the Footnotes for those who have the time and interest for them. The main email will then be reasonable length, hopefully for the busy majority. What follows is not a sermon; I do not feel qualified to give one, anyhow. I wish, it may provide a food for thought. A caveat seems in order: If the ayah selected pertains to issues we face in our daily life with our family, friends, neighbours or peers it may affect us personally and lead to some self analysis and soul searching which in turn could be divisive and distressing. If taken in the right spirit, it can be a humble attempt towards finding the “straight path”.)
THE AYAH
() Surah Al Noor no.24, Ayah 2
لزّانِيَةُ وَالزّاني فَاجلِدوا كُلَّ واحِدٍ مِنهُما مِائَةَ جَلدَةٍ ۖ وَلا تَأخُذكُم بِهِما رَأفَةٌ في دينِ اللَّهِ إِن كُنتُم تُؤمِنونَ بِاللَّهِ وَاليَومِ الآخِرِ ۖ وَليَشهَد عَذابَهُما طائِفَةٌ مِنَ المُؤمِنينَ
“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 God, if ye believe in God and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.”
A SHORT VERSION
“I am convinced about the veracity of my opinions, but I do consider it likely that they may turn out to be incorrect. Likewise, I am convinced about the incorrectness of the views different from mine, but I do concede the possibility that they may turn out to be correct.” — Imam Shafa’i
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS
(To recapitulate: We have discussed the ayah on Zina in October; started discussing its retribution in November; Insha Allah this will be completed in this session)
Before I proceed further, a point which I had left out last time while I was discussing Maulana Maudoodi.
It is an extremely important and sensitive issue while deciding and analyzing the commandments of our Deen on very important issues. Maudoodi states in his discussion on the issue of stoning “But they forgot that the explanation of the Quranic verses by the Holy Prophet carries the same weight and authority in law as the words of the Qur'an itself, provided that the explanation is proved to be from the Holy Prophet. …………..Nobody can deny the position and authority of the Prophet in the legal system of Islam. It is he alone who can explain the underlying intention of a Divine Command, its procedures and in what cases it will be applicable and in what there is another injunction. To deny this position and authority of the Prophet is not only against the principles of Islam but it also entails innumerable complications in practice.” With due respect, Maulana Sahib, you are just emphasising the obvious. I am positive no Muslim, almost none challenges the authority and supremacy of our Beloved Prophet. The position, role and authority of the beloved Messenger of Allah in Islam is unquestionable. So no PPK Muslim will ever dare to challenge even the wishes, let alone opinions and instructions of our beloved Holy Prophet. The real problem is equating the Sunnah of the Prophet on the one hand with Hadith, traditions and rivaayaat on the other. The two are very different and distinct. The former is the example — vocal and practical — of our Prophet demanding unflinching obedience. The latter is a very laudable human attempt to collect and record whatever he said, whenever he said and to whomever he said. Laudable as I said but for various reasons full of controversies and contradictions. Imam Bukhari had to reject nine hundred and ninety five ahaadith for every five that he ultimately selected. This shows how large the pool is and how contaminated it is. I do not intend to discuss this topic any further; suffice it to say that study of hadith literature needs full concentration and scrutiny as to the background, when, why and who was addressed. Uncritical conformity to the valuable hadith literature is responsible for many distortions in our religion, the verdict of Stoning to death being on of them. I am saying this with all my respect for Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi. I regard him in high esteem as a traditional cum modern scholar. His Tafheemul Quran is a master piece.
Any discussion on zina and its consequences must also include the following two ayahs:
“AND AS FOR those of your women who become guilty of immoral conduct, call upon four from among you who have witnessed their guilt; and if these bear witness thereto, confine the guilty women1 to their houses until death takes them away or God opens for them a way [through repentance]”3
“And punish [thus] both of the guilty parties; but if they both repent and mend their ways, leave them alone: for, behold, God is an acceptor of repentance, a dispenser of grace.”4
It is generally understood by commentators that the first of this pair of ……………………(See main story)
I am terribly impressed by “Ma’aariful Quran” the eight volume tafseer of the Holy Quran by the eminent scholar Maulana Mufti Mohammed Shafi. Listen carefully what he has to say:“If we analyze the causes of fitna, we will note that in most cases the root cause is woman and to a lesser degree the wealth. Only those rules can guarantee the worldly peace which safeguard the woman and wealth in a befitting manner and do not allow them to cross the appointed limits”. Very confusing and challenging statement. It clearly illustrates we cannot follow our Ulema blindly and completely……………….. (See main story)
Mufti Mohammed Shafi endorses Maulana Moudoodi that Rajm is the prescribed punishment for adultery. He makes a long case for it.5 He quotes a strong hadith in support and maintains as Maulana Maudoodi that our Holy Prophet had enforced it on several occasions. We are all very proud and confident that the Holy Quran is bereft of even a tiny alteration and has reached us in its purest form under the protection of Allah Ta'aala Subhaanahoo. It is the only miracle of our beloved prophet. I am really shocked and bewildered when the eminent scholar (and many others) is ready to destroy one of our fundamental and core part of our Eemaan that the Quran (exact words of Allah Ta'aala Subhaanahoo and transmitted as a miracle to us over the centuries exactly to the last letter as was revealed to the Messenger of Allah in the seventeenth century) in his attempt to prove rajm and involves our hero Umer bin Khattab in the scheme. The second caliph is reported to have stated that this punishment was mentioned in the Quran but was later lost; he felt like putting a note in the Quran to this effect but avoided it to avoid any controversy. Mufti concludes that this punishment is as authentic as if it was included in the Quran!! May Allah Ta'aala Subhaanahoo bless him but I just cannot imagine how any Muslim, let alone a celebrated scholar make such a judgement. It is a glaring example of “rivaayat parasti”; shirk, I dare say. It shows a very strong bias and temperament overtaking his good judgement. ……………(See main story)
Well known eminent scholars Dr. Mohammed Asad and Allaamaa Yousuf Ali have made no mention of Stoning to Death (Rajm) in their explanation of the ayah.
“The Study Quran” is a New book of Tafseer (Nov. 2015) by Nasr, Seyyed Hossein and his associates Dagli, Caner K., Dakake, Maria Massi, Lumbard, Joseph E.B., Rustom, Mohammed. A well written treatise with an analytical and enquiring approach. The lead author has emphasized in the preamble that they have tried to retain the orthodox theory in their exegesis. I have one very strong objection to this excellent work. The Arabic Text is not included; this is a major shortcoming.
Hossein, in his lengthy — fifteen page — review of this problem6 has discussed all the relevant issues and threadbare analysed and assessed all the rivaayaat (traditions) proposed in favour of rajm.
According to the him, zānī and zāniyah, refer to unlawful sexual intercourse by both married and unmarried persons……………………… (See main story)
In his long and scholarly critique the author has taken one by one the evidence and rivaayaats offered in favor of rajm and analysed and dissected them threadbare and has convincingly disproved them…………..
Amin Ahsan Ilahi, an eminent scholar has also dealt with at length on the issue of rajm in classical Urdu. I have enclosed herewith some of his major comments to gain your confidence.7 He also has assessed all the rivaayaats quoted in favour of rajm and logically discredited them. He makes a special note that the rivaayat of a Quranic verse prescribing stoning and attributed to Umer bin Khattan is so ludicrous and wild that it pains him even to discuss it; he has done it reluctantly to complete his argument.
Though Amin Ahsan rejects all the usual evidence given in favour of rajm, he still declares that he believes stoning is one of the options available in our Shari’ah.. How is that? He takes his cue from Ayahs 33 and 34 of Surah Al Ma’idah.8 ……………………(See main story)
As a side thought; for you and me, the PPK Muslims one lesson is clear and powerful. We cannot learn and practice our Deem without the advice and guidance of our respectable and admirable scholars. However a blind following has and will mislead us and distort our Deen. We must insist on the source of there views. After our Prophet, the most revered and exalted person for any Muslim is none other than Sayyidna Abu Bakr Siddique. In his first address, after his election as the first Caliph to the rank and file — the bedouin of Medina — he appealed them to follow him if he follows the Quran; if goes against the Quran they should correct him. It is worth repeating he was addressing the general public and not the elite alone.
Javed Ahmed Ghamdi, scholar, researcher and academician has not mentioned at all about rajm in his tafseer of this ayah. However he has emphasized that lashing is the maximum punishment for adultery and fornication and makes a good case9 for all sort of leniency in implementing it, if conditions demand
Lastly let us see what Sayyid Qutb says in his great Tafseer: “As for a person who has had sexual relations within a proper marriage and then commits adultery even though he is sane, of age and free, his punishment is stoning.” At this point the Editor of this exegesis has added a note: ………………
This is how Qutb has come to his conclusion: “Such stoning is confirmed in the Sunnah, while flogging is established clearly in the Qur’ān. Since the Qur’ānic statement is phrased in general terms, and the Prophet inflicted stoning on a married man and a married woman who committed adultery, it is clear that the punishment of flogging applies only to adulterers who are unmarried.” He is putting the rivaayat above the Quran; a totally human effort with all the weaknesses, limitations and impediments (specially in the the ninth century) is placed above the plain and clear words of Allah Ta'aala Subhaanahoo conveyed to us under Divine guarantee for its protection. He accepts the rivaayat of stoning ordered by the Holy Prophet up front and then interprets the ayah of the Quran accordingly!! Our Eemaan demands it should be other way round; judge the human effort in the light of Allah Ta'aala Subhaanahoo’s words. Mind you, we are not talking of the Sunnah of the Prophet or his words or his example. We are dealing with the words of a sahaabaa (or two or three of them because these are ahaad rivaayaat) about the actions of our Prophet and conveyed to us by the word of mouth over a period of two centuries. I suggest to my Brothers and Sisters in Islam and strongly advise my children and grand children to think and ponder on this attitude very very carefully. This particular misconception of equating hadith with sunnah is responsible for many controversies and distortions in our Deen. I dare say it borders on Shirk and Kufr. Let me repeat: Sunnah is the example of our Holy Prophet, his words and deeds played out over twenty two years in early seventh century. Obeying his sunnah is mandatory for every Muslim by consensus. Hadith on the other hand was compiled two hundred years after the demise of the Holy Prophet in the ninth century. It is about the words of a Sahaabaa referring to some action or statement of their Ideal and Hero whom they adored, almost worshipped (do not take it literally, please). These words of the sahaabaa, on matters of great import or really trivial, travelled by the word of mouth for the next two centuries till its compilation in the ninth century. This valuable literature has to be critically scrutinized before acceptance. Despite the exemplary efforts, sagacity and perseverance of our outstanding Muhaddesins the hadith literature is full of fake entries along with controversial, contradictory and multiple versions. Many of the popular and generally accepted ahaadith have been found to be erroneous by scholars and researchers like Javed Ahmed Ghamdi. Because of this trend perhaps, our Noble Prophet has stated that any body who attributes a wrong statement to him will find his place in Hell. There are very few ahaadith from our supreme and outstanding leaders Abu Bakr and Umer; they did not want to take any chances. On the other hand, Abu Huraira opted to go all out for it.
Before I close a reference to the ayah following the index ayah to complete the story10
“Let no man guilty of adultery or fornication marry and but a woman similarly guilty, or an Unbeliever: nor let any but such a man or an Unbeliever marry such a woman: to the Believers such a thing is forbidden.”
Apparently the ayah declares that performers of this crime are excluded from marrying chaste men and women. Thus in addition to the flogging the miscreants face social consequences also. …………….
Confused? It is very baffling, indeed. Eight tafaaseer have been consulted: Three in favour of rajm; one rejects all rivayaat in favor of rajm but supports rajm; one against rajm; three make no mention of rajm at all. Anyhow my vote is ready: rajm or stoning to death has not been recommended in Islamic Shari’ah. I will be happy if I have been of any help to you in deciding your vote.
Let me end with a happy note. In all its apparently strict and strong punishments, Islam maneuvers to avoid them rather than enforce them. Our noble Prophet declares “Spare Muslims the infliction of mandatory punishments wherever possible. If there is any way out for the accused, let him go unpunished. It is better that the ruler errs on the side of pardon, rather than punishment.” ( al-Tirmidhī)
May Allah Ta’aala bless us with true understanding--“fahm”--of our Deen, Aameen.
THE MAIN STORY
“I am convinced about the veracity of my opinions, but I do consider it likely that they may turn out to be incorrect. Likewise, I am convinced about the incorrectness of the views different from mine, but I do concede the possibility that they may turn out to be correct.” — Imam Shafa’i
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS
(To recapitulate: We have discussed the ayah on Zina in October; started discussing its retribution in November; Insha Allah this will be completed in this session)
Before I proceed further, a point which I had left out last time while I was discussing Maulana Maudoodi.
It is an extremely important and sensitive issue while deciding and analyzing the commandments of our Deen on very important issues. Maudoodi states in his discussion on the issue of stoning “But they forgot that the explanation of the Quranic verses by the Holy Prophet carries the same weight and authority in law as the words of the Qur'an itself, provided that the explanation is proved to be from the Holy Prophet. …………..Nobody can deny the position and authority of the Prophet in the legal system of Islam. It is he alone who can explain the underlying intention of a Divine Command, its procedures and in what cases it will be applicable and in what there is another injunction. To deny this position and authority of the Prophet is not only against the principles of Islam but it also entails innumerable complications in practice.” With due respect, Maulana Sahib, you are just emphasising the obvious. I am positive no Muslim, almost none challenges the authority and supremacy of our Beloved Prophet. The position, role and authority of the beloved Messenger of Allah in Islam is unquestionable. So no PPK Muslim will ever dare to challenge even the wishes, let alone opinions and instructions of our beloved Holy Prophet. The real problem is equating the Sunnah of the Prophet on the one hand with Hadith, traditions and rivaayaat on the other. The two are very different and distinct. The former is the example — vocal and practical — of our Prophet demanding unflinching obedience. The latter is a very laudable human attempt to collect and record whatever he said, whenever he said and to whomever he said. Laudable as I said but for various reasons full of controversies and contradictions. Imam Bukhari had to reject nine hundred and ninety five ahaadith for every five that he ultimately selected. This shows how large the pool is and how contaminated it is. I do not intend to discuss this topic any further; suffice it to say that study of hadith literature needs full concentration and scrutiny as to the background, when, why and who was addressed. Uncritical conformity to the valuable hadith literature is responsible for many distortions in our religion, the verdict of Stoning to death being on of them. I am saying this with all my respect for Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi. I regard him in high esteem as a traditional cum modern scholar. His Tafheemul Quran is a master piece.
Any discussion on zina and its consequences must also include the following two ayahs:
“AND AS FOR those of your women who become guilty of immoral conduct, call upon four from among you who have witnessed their guilt; and if these bear witness thereto, confine the guilty women1 to their houses until death takes them away or God opens for them a way [through repentance]”3
“And punish [thus] both of the guilty parties; but if they both repent and mend their ways, leave them alone: for, behold, God is an acceptor of repentance, a dispenser of grace.”4
It is generally understood by commentators that the first of this pair of ayahs refer to adultery and fornication. They therefore conclude that the sentence of life prison was later changed in Surah Noor, Ayah 2 to hundred stripes as we have already discussed. Yousuf Ali is of the opinion that this ayah is referring to lesbianism just as homosexuality is referred to in the next ayah because “(1) no punishment is specified here for the man, as would be the case where a man was involved in the crime; (2) the word, at lati, the purely feminine plural of al lati, is used for the parties to the crime; (3) the punishment is indefinite. No punishment is mentioned; presumably it may be the same as for men in the next ayah.
The second ayah of this pair, says Yousuf Ali refers to homosexuals. Whereas Mohammed Asad maintains that “ according to most of the commentators, this refers to immoral conduct on the part of a man and a woman as well as to homosexual relations.” He further explains that “the expression fahishah does not, by itself, connote illicit sexual intercourse: it signifies anything that is grossly immodest, unseemly, lewd, indecent or abominable in word or in deed (cf. Lane VI, 2344 f.), and is by no means restricted to sexual transgressions. Read in this context, this expression obviously denotes here immoral conduct not necessarily amounting to what is termed zina (i.e., "adultery" or "fornication"), and therefore redeemable by sincere repentance”. It should be noted that even this level of sexual misconduct needs four witnesses for conviction
I am terribly impressed by “Ma’aariful Quran” the eight volume tafseer of the Holy Quran by the eminent scholar Maulana Mufti Mohammed Shafi. Listen carefully what he has to say:“If we analyze the causes of fitna, we will note that in most cases the root cause is woman and to a lesser degree the wealth. Only those rules can guarantee the worldly peace which safeguard the woman and wealth in a befitting manner and do not allow them to cross the appointed limits”. Very confusing and challenging statement. It clearly illustrates we cannot follow our Ulema blindly and completely. We must analyse their attitude and approach to start with and then study their reasons they provide. If it does not make sense specially in serious and far-reaching matters we must consult other sources. With all my respect for the Mufti, I find his characterization and appreciation of the role of women reflects very poorly on his intelligence and understanding of the Holy Text on this topic. I agree it sounds very impertinent on my part to say this. However knowledge and understanding — fehm — are too distinct qualities. Two scholars of equal standing may have divergent views on the same issue. May Allah Ta'aala Subhaanahoo bless us with the correct fehm of our Deen. The most important personalities in my life are my Mother, my Sister, my Wife and of course my Daughter; all of them are women. And Mufti Sahib wants me to label them as root cause of “disorder and disturbance the world over”. He makes a special reference that in this ayah fornicating woman is mentioned before the fornicating man. As a general rule the Quran only uses the masculine gender for an injunction but is applicable to both the sexes. He has left it to the reader to draw any implications from this deviation in the style.
Mufti Mohammed Shafi endorses Maulana Moudoodi that Rajm is the prescribed punishment for adultery. He makes a long case for it.5 He quotes a strong hadith in support and maintains as Maulana Maudoodi that our Holy Prophet had enforced it on several occasions. We are all very proud and confident that the Holy Quran is bereft of even a tiny alteration and has reached us in its purest form under the protection of Allah Ta'aala Subhaanahoo. It is the only miracle of our beloved prophet. I am really shocked and bewildered when the eminent scholar (and many others) is ready to destroy one of our fundamental and core part of our Eemaan that the Quran (exact words of Allah Ta'aala Subhaanahoo and transmitted as a miracle to us over the centuries exactly to the last letter as was revealed to the Messenger of Allah in the seventeenth century) in his attempt to prove rajm and involves our hero Umer bin Khattab in the scheme. The second caliph is reported to have stated that this punishment was mentioned in the Quran but was later lost; he felt like putting a note in the Quran to this effect but avoided it to avoid any controversy. Mufti concludes that this punishment is as authentic as if it was included in the Quran!! May Allah Ta'aala Subhaanahoo bless him but I just cannot imagine how any Muslim, let alone a celebrated scholar make such a judgement. It is a glaring example of “rivaayat parasti”; shirk, I dare say. It shows a very strong bias and temperament overtaking his good judgement. He is striking at one of the core teachings of Islam when he says “For the Messenger, and for those who hear from him directly, both the revelations which are recited in the form of Quran and those which are not recited have equal sanctity.” So according to Mufti the punishment for zina was prescribed in three different stages. First, it was light and left to the discretion of the judge or the ruler (Surah Al Nisa). Second, hundred stripes were enforced (Surah An Noor). Third, rajm for the married as per Hadith and rivaayaat. He adds that “If there is the slightest doubt or uncertainty, then the maximum punishment, known as hadd ,is remitted, and only a punishment by way of ta'zir may be awarded which should be commensurate with the extent of crime.”
Well known eminent scholars Dr. Mohammed Asad and Allaamaa Yousuf Ali have made no mention of Stoning to Death (Rajm) in their explanation of the ayah.
“The Study Quran” is a New book of Tafseer (Nov. 2015) by Nasr, Seyyed Hossein and his associates Dagli, Caner K., Dakake, Maria Massi, Lumbard, Joseph E.B., Rustom, Mohammed. A well written treatise with an analytical and enquiring approach. The lead author has emphasized in the preamble that they have tried to retain the orthodox theory in their exegesis. I have one very strong objection to this excellent work. The Arabic Text is not included; this is a major shortcoming.
Hossein, in his lengthy — fifteen page — review of this problem6 has discussed all the relevant issues and threadbare analysed and assessed all the rivaayaat (traditions) proposed in favour of rajm.
According to the him, zānī and zāniyah, refer to unlawful sexual intercourse by both married and unmarried persons. He starts by summarizing the prevalent popular opinion on the treatment of zina: “According to most jurists, 4: 15– 16 (discussed earlier) promulgated the first punishments for adultery. These punishments were then considered abrogated by 24: 2(The index ayah). This is then the ‘way’ opened by God to which the previous ayahs refer to. It is thought by many jurists and commentators that 24: 2 was further abrogated or delimited by the punishment of stoning to death— established by the Prophet, but not in the Quran— for married adulterers (both male and female), while some believe that 24: 2 had always been understood as applicable only to unmarried people. Upholders of the penalty of stoning to death point to aḥādīth describing the Prophet enforcing a penalty of stoning to death for married adulterers, a practice also said to have been followed by the first caliphs. They also mention a verse from the Quran that prescribed the punishment of stoning whose “recitation” (tilāwah) was abrogated, while its legal status (ḥukm) remained; that is, although it is not found in the Quran, its ruling is still binding— a highly contested idea.” ( According to Sayyid Qutb the punishment for the guilty adulteress, under these ayahs was confinement at home and verbal reprimand, while the adulterer was punished by verbal reprimand only.)
In his long and scholarly critique the author has taken one by one the evidence and rivaayaats offered in favor of rajm and analysed and dissected them threadbare and has convincingly disproved them. I have quoted here some of his comments for your perusal “ these statements often contradict each other on important details and contain errors and inconsistencies, such as misquotations from the Torah……….. …substantial incongruities between the different accounts……. some aḥādīth mention lashes and stoning combined, while others do not……..furthermore, some accounts mention banishment, but it is absent from other accounts……..though ʿUmar is said to have spoken of stoning, there is no record of either Abū Bakr or ʿUmar stoning anyone in the traditional histories…… …none of these ḥadīth accounts taken singly would seem to rise to the level of abrogating an unambiguous Quranic text, especially because they contradict each other, do not reinforce each other when they are taken together, and indeed seem to nullify each other………. the Quran describes many kinds of transgressions including theft and murder, but does not go into the same level of detail for them as it does for adultery, and thus it is implausible that, in the midst of this detail, stoning, which is a more grievous punishment than all others mentioned in the Quran, would go unmentioned. It is also argued that no solitary ḥadīth could overturn the plain sense of the Quran, much less on a question as momentous as imposing the severest of penalties.,……………. among these jurists, some speculate that those incidents of stoning, even if taken as historical events, took place before the revelation of 24: 2, and thus 24: 2 is the final and abrogating punishment for adultery and stoning is at a maximum a possibility of taʿzīr…………. also based upon the improbable nature of some of the aḥādīth adduced in its favor as well as their mutual contradiction………….. Such speculation about the origins of this punishment is justified and worthwhile in the face of the evidence in favor of stoning to death— evidence that is equivocal at best and contradictory and untenable at worst. It is also important to mention that the condition set for the proof of adultery— four eyewitnesses to the very act— was such that this punishment was very rare in Islamic society.”
Amin Ahsan Ilahi, an eminent scholar has also dealt with at length on the issue of rajm in classical Urdu. I have enclosed herewith some of his major comments to gain your confidence.7 He also has assessed all the rivaayaats quoted in favour of rajm and logically discredited them. He makes a special note that the rivaayat of a Quranic verse prescribing stoning and attributed to Umer bin Khattan is so ludicrous and wild that it pains him even to discuss it; he has done it reluctantly to complete his argument.
Though Amin Ahsan rejects all the usual evidence given in favour of rajm, he still declares that he believes stoning is one of the options available in our Shari’ah.. How is that? He takes his cue from Ayahs 33 and 34 of Surah Al Ma’idah.8 His reasoning appears as bizarre and weird as of those ulema whom he has squarely condemned earlier. This ayah is explicit that it is about punishment for “who wage war against God and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is”. He wants to apply it to adultery as well. The ayah mentions four types of punishment “execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land” and a final fifth one: “and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter”. Amir Ahsan does not seem to be content with this long list; he adds rajm to the inventory. His view is based on a nuisance of Arabic grammar. He argues that the word used “yu-qat-talu” instead of “qatl” emphasizes severity and hardness. In his opinion rajm fulfill this need much more than the list mentioned in this ayah. He has resorted to this round about way to find Quranic support to his presumed evidence of rajm by our Holy Prophet.
As a side thought; for you and me, the PPK Muslims one lesson is clear and powerful. We cannot learn and practice our Deem without the advice and guidance of our respectable and admirable scholars. However a blind following has and will mislead us and distort our Deen. We must insist on the source of there views. After our Prophet, the most revered and exalted person for any Muslim is none other than Sayyidna Abu Bakr Siddique. In his first address, after his election as the first Caliph to the rank and file — the bedouin of Medina — he appealed them to follow him if he follows the Quran; if goes against the Quran they should correct him. It is worth repeating he was addressing the general public and not the elite alone.
Javed Ahmed Ghamdi, scholar, researcher and academician has not mentioned at all about rajm in his tafseer of this ayah. However he has emphasized that lashing is the maximum punishment for adultery and fornication and makes a good case9 for all sort of leniency in implementing it, if conditions demand
Lastly let us see what Sayyid Qutb says in his great Tafseer: “As for a person who has had sexual relations within a proper marriage and then commits adultery even though he is sane, of age and free, his punishment is stoning.” At this point the Editor of this exegesis has added a note: “ One difference not mentioned by the author relates to whether stoning is mandatory or discretionary. The traditional view is that it is mandatory, but a number of eminent scholars have questioned this, classifying it as discretionary. A discretionary punishment is left to the judge looking into the case, or the ruler, to determine whether to apply it in full, reduce, or even withhold it. A mandatory punishment is stated by God and it must be applied as stated, when the offence is duly proven in accordance with the provision of Islamic law.”
This is how Qutb has come to his conclusion: “Such stoning is confirmed in the Sunnah, while flogging is established clearly in the Qur’ān. Since the Qur’ānic statement is phrased in general terms, and the Prophet inflicted stoning on a married man and a married woman who committed adultery, it is clear that the punishment of flogging applies only to adulterers who are unmarried.” He is putting the rivaayat above the Quran; a totally human effort with all the weaknesses, limitations and impediments (specially in the the ninth century) is placed above the plain and clear words of Allah Ta'aala Subhaanahoo conveyed to us under Divine guarantee for its protection. He accepts the rivaayat of stoning ordered by the Holy Prophet up front and then interprets the ayah of the Quran accordingly!! Our Eemaan demands it should be other way round; judge the human effort in the light of Allah Ta'aala Subhaanahoo’s words. Mind you, we are not talking of the Sunnah of the Prophet or his words or his example. We are dealing with the words of a sahaabaa (or two or three of them because these are ahaad rivaayaat) about the actions of our Prophet and conveyed to us by the word of mouth over a period of two centuries. I suggest to my Brothers and Sisters in Islam and strongly advise my children and grand children to think and ponder on this attitude very very carefully. This particular misconception of equating hadith with sunnah is responsible for many controversies and distortions in our Deen. I dare say it borders on Shirk and Kufr. Let me repeat: Sunnah is the example of our Holy Prophet, his words and deeds played out over twenty two years in early seventh century. Obeying his sunnah is mandatory for every Muslim by consensus. Hadith on the other hand was compiled two hundred years after the demise of the Holy Prophet in the ninth century. It is about the words of a Sahaabaa referring to some action or statement of their Ideal and Hero whom they adored, almost worshipped (do not take it literally, please). These words of the sahaabaa, on matters of great import or really trivial, travelled by the word of mouth for the next two centuries till its compilation in the ninth century. This valuable literature has to be critically scrutinized before acceptance. Despite the exemplary efforts, sagacity and perseverance of our outstanding Muhaddesins the hadith literature is full of fake entries along with controversial, contradictory and multiple versions. Many of the popular and generally accepted ahaadith have been found to be erroneous by scholars and researchers like Javed Ahmed Ghamdi. Because of this trend perhaps, our Noble Prophet has stated that any body who attributes a wrong statement to him will find his place in Hell. There are very few ahaadith from our supreme and outstanding leaders Abu Bakr and Umer; they did not want to take any chances. On the other hand, Abu Huraira opted to go all out for it.
Before I close a reference to the ayah following the index ayah to complete the story10
“Let no man guilty of adultery or fornication marry and but a woman similarly guilty, or an Unbeliever: nor let any but such a man or an Unbeliever marry such a woman: to the Believers such a thing is forbidden.”
Apparently the ayah declares that performers of this crime are excluded from marrying chaste men and women. Thus in addition to the flogging the miscreants face social consequences also. Most commentators do conform to this view and regard it as a divine injunction. They differ in the details. Imam Ahmed thinks it will be valid after a genuine repentance. However Dr. Mohammed Asad gives potent evidence11 to offer a different interpretation. He thinks this ayah is a statement of realities on the ground as Muslims by nature are repugnant for such a relationship. This cannot be an injunction because Islam does not allow marriage with mushrekin in the first place. Second, it is one of the founding principles of Islam that a miscreant after receiving the full retribution is clean and innocent; even talking about his crime is discouraged by the Holy Prophet. Sayyid Qutb supports this view when he says “At any rate, the Qur’ānic verse makes it clear that by nature believing men and women feel that to be married to someone who commits adultery is strongly repugnant. Thus, it is very unlikely to happen, and this improbability is described here as a prohibition. Thus, ties between the Muslim community and individuals who commit adultery are non-existent”.
Confused? It is very baffling, indeed. Eight tafaaseer have been consulted: Three in favour of rajm; one rejects all rivayaat in favor of rajm but supports rajm; one against rajm; three make no mention of rajm at all. Anyhow my vote is ready: rajm or stoning to death has not been recommended by Islamic Shari’ah. I will be happy if I have been of any help to you in deciding your vote.
Let me end with a happy note. In all its apparently strict and strong punishments, Islam maneuvers to avoid them rather than enforce them. Our noble Prophet declares “Spare Muslims the infliction of mandatory punishments wherever possible. If there is any way out for the accused, let him go unpunished. It is better that the ruler errs on the side of pardon, rather than punishment.” ( al-Tirmidhī)
May Allah Ta’aala bless us with true understanding--“fahm”--of our Deen, Aameen.
FOOTNOTES
(1) Surah 2/269
يُؤتِي الحِكمَةَ مَن يَشاءُ ۚ وَمَن يُؤتَ الحِكمَةَ فَقَد أوتِيَ خَيرًا كَثيرًا ۗ وَما يَذَّكَّرُ إِلّا أُولُو الأَلبابِ
(2) Surah 102/8
ثُمَّ لَتُسأَلُنَّ يَومَئِذٍ عَنِ النَّعيمِ
(3) Surah 4/15
وَاللّاتي يَأتينَ الفاحِشَةَ مِن نِسائِكُم فَاستَشهِدوا عَلَيهِنَّ أَربَعَةً مِنكُم ۖ فَإِن شَهِدوا فَأَمسِكوهُنَّ فِي البُيوتِ حَتّىٰ يَتَوَفّاهُنَّ المَوتُ أَو يَجعَلَ اللَّهُ لَهُنَّ سَبيلًا
(4) Surah 4/16
وَاللَّذانِ يَأتِيانِها مِنكُم فَآذوهُما ۖ فَإِن تابوَأَصلَحا فَأَعرِضوا عَنهُما ۗ إِنَّ اللَّهَ كانَ تَوّابًا رَحيمًا
(5) Mufti Mohammed Shafi
A Hadith has been related by Sahih Muslim, Musnad Ahmad, Sunnan Nasa'i, Abu Dawood, Tirmidhi and Ibn Mahah on the authority of Sayyidna Ubadah ibn Sabit that the Holy Prophet said: “Have knowledge from me, have knowledge from me that Allah Ta’aala has prescribed now the 'way for women' (that He had promised before), which is that for unmarried man and woman is a hundred stripes and exile for one year, and for married man and woman it is a hundred stripes and stoning”
It is but obvious that the additions made by the Holy Prophet in the verse of Surah an-Noor was also on the command of Allah Ta’aala. For the Messenger, and for those who hear from him directly, both the revelations which are recited in the form of Quran and those which are not recited have equal sanctity. The Holy Prophet himself had acted upon this rule(punishment of stoning to married adulterer)in the presence of many of his companions.
Bukhari and Muslim have recorded an address of Sayyidna 'Umar Khattab on the authority of Ibn 'Abbas :
Sayyidna 'Umar Ibn Khattab said while he was sitting on the pulpit of the Holy Prophet that 'Allah sent Muhammad with truth and revealed to him the Book. So, whatever is revealed to him includes the verse of stoning as well, which we have read, memorized and understood. Now I fear that with the passage of time one might say that we do not find the injunction of rajm (stoning)in the Book of Allah, and hence go astray by not following a religious obligation, which is revealed by Allah. And be clear in your mind that the injunction of stoning (rajm)is ordained upon the one, whether man or woman, who is married when the evidence of adultery is established or there is a confession or pregnancy.
The same version is narrated in Sahih of al-Bukhari also with greater detail and in Nasai’; it is narrated in the following words: We have no choice to avoid the punishment of stoning (rajm), because it is one of the the punishments prescribed by Allah. Be very clear in your mind that the Holy Prophet himself had awarded stoning and we too have awarded stoning after him. If there was no risk of people saying that Umar has added something on his own in the Book of Allah, I would have written this in a corner of the Quran. And Umar Ibn Khattab is witness, Abdur Rahman is witness and so and so companions are witnesses that the Holy Prophet had awarded stoning. (Ibn Kathir)
This is apparently proved by the address of Sayyidna Umar that there is a specific verse on injunction of stoning which is in addition to the verse under reference of Surah an-Niir. But Sayyidna Umar did not tell the wordings of that verse, nor did he tell that if there is a separate verse beside the verse of Surah an-No0r why it is not included in the Quran, and why it is not recited. He only said that if there was no risk involved that people would put blame on him of making addition in the Book of Allah, he would have written this verse on a corner of the Quran. (al-Nasai')
What needs careful consideration in this narration is that, if it is a verse of the Qur'an and its recitation is mandatory like other verses, then why Sayyidna Umar left it out just because of the fear of people's calumny; when he is well known for his vehemence about Allah's injunctions. The other point to be noted is that he did not say that he would have included this verse in the Quran, but all he said was he would have written it on the margin of the Quran. ……..The jurists who have related this verse as abrogated for recitation but not abrogated as a command have done so by way of an example, and as such it does not in fact prove that it is a part of the Quran.
On stoning: The gist of the matter is that the punishment of hundred stripes described in Surah al Nur for adulterer man and woman is exclusive to unmarried man and woman as per detailed explanation and elucidation of the Holy Prophet and punishment for the married persons is rajm (stoning). Although this elucidation is not given in the wordings of the verse but the exalted person to whom this verse was revealed has himself elaborated the subject without the slightest doubt of any confusion. It is not that the Holy Prophet explained this only through his words, but he also executed this punishment several times in the presence of many companions, and the proof of this has reached us with unbroken authentic chain of narrators. Therefore, the punishment of stoning for married man and woman is in fact an injunction of the Book of Allah itself, in the sense that it is as certain as any other injunction of the Qur'an. This fact may be mentioned either by saying that rajm is a provision of the Quran itself, or by saying that it is established by the unbroken chain of traditions. Sayyidna Ali has also said the same.
Three degrees of gradations in the punishment of adultery
On pondering over the verses of the Qur'an and the ahaadith referred to above, it becomes clear that initially the punishment of fornication was light in that the judge or the ruler was to afflict pain to the perpetrator (man and woman) of the crime at his own discretion, and confine the woman in the home. This punishment was enjoined in Surah An-Nisa. The second period was that when the verse of Surah an-Nur was revealed in which hundred stripes each to both were enjoined. The third period was the one when the Holy Prophet instructed after the revelation of the verse under discussion that the punishment of hundred stripes will be restricted only to those who are not married, but if married man and
woman commit this crime then their punishment is stoning (rajm).
If there is the slightest doubt or uncertainty, then the maximum punishment, known as hadd (L),is remitted, and only a punishment by way of ta'zir may be awarded which should be commensurate with the extent of crime.
(6) Quran study
Adulterer and adulteress render zānī and zāniyah, respectively, which are derived from zinā, meaning unlawful sexual intercourse (by both married and unmarried persons; Zinā is also mentioned in 17: 32; 25: 68; 60: 12. A related word is faḥshāʾ or fāḥishah, usually rendered “indecency,” which often, though not always, refers to sexual misconduct in the Quran; for example, 4: 15 refers to a fāḥishah (“ indecency”) that is usually understood to mean zinā (“ adultery”).
According to most jurists, 4: 15– 16 promulgated the first punishments for adultery: As for those of your women who commit an indecency, call four witnesses among you to bear witness against them. And if they bear witness, then confine them to their houses until death takes them, or until God appoints for them another way. And if two of those among you are guilty thereof, punish them both; but if they repent and make amends, then let them be. These punishments were then considered abrogated by 24: 2. It is thought by many jurists and commentators that 24: 2 was further abrogated or delimited by the punishment of stoning to death— established by the Prophet, but not in the Quran— for married adulterers (both male and female), while some believe that 24: 2 had always been understood as applicable only to unmarried people. Upholders of the penalty of stoning to death point to aḥādīth describing the Prophet enforcing a penalty of stoning to death for married adulterers, a practice also said to have been followed by the first caliphs. They also mention a verse from the Quran that prescribed the punishment of stoning whose “recitation” (tilāwah) was abrogated, while its legal status (ḥukm) remained; that is, although it is not found in the Quran, its ruling is still binding— a highly contested idea. These sources regarding stoning merit consideration in some detail.
The Jewish couple: In one account, often mentioned in the commentaries on 3: 23 and 5: 43– 44, two Jews in Madinah of high station who were guilty of adultery came to the Prophet to decide their case. According to most accounts, they did so hoping to avoid the punishment of stoning recorded in the Torah by relying upon the reportedly more lenient law being brought by Muhammad. According to some accounts, the Prophet asked for the Torah and had the relevant passage read for him, while in others he asked the expertise of a learned Jew of Madinah. In some versions the couple confessed, and in other versions the sentence depended upon the testimony of eyewitnesses. In all accounts of the Jewish couple the Prophet resolutely vowed to follow the dictates of the Torah, and the couple were stoned to death.
Māʿiz ibn Mālik: In another account, a man identified as Māʿiz ibn Mālik, or simply “a man from [the tribe of] al-Aslam,” came to the Prophet to confess adultery, and at this initial confession the Prophet rebuffed him and sent him away. Undaunted, the man returned a second and then a third time and received the same reaction from the Prophet. After he confessed a fourth time, the Prophet ordered him stoned. In some versions, the Prophet thoroughly interrogated the man, asking if perhaps he only engaged in passionate acts other than intercourse, and then made inquiries about whether the man was known to be sane. According to some versions, the man asked the Prophet directly to stone him, while in other versions the man attempted to run from the stoning, crying that his people fooled him into confessing and that he never thought the Prophet would kill him. In these versions, when the Prophet heard of this, he asked why they did not let him go when he said that, so that perchance he could repent. In other versions, the Prophet met him and was the first to ask if it were true that he had committed the sin of adultery, to which the man replied in the affirmative, after which the Prophet warned the man that if he confessed a fourth time, he would be stoned.
The pregnant woman: In another account, a pregnant woman, sometimes identified as from the tribe of Juhaynah (or its subtribe Ghāmid), came and confessed her adultery, and even wondered if the Prophet would try to turn her away as he did with Māʿiz. The Prophet ordered her to go away until she gave birth; when she came back after the baby had been weaned, the Prophet ordered her stoned.
The ḥadīth of double punishment: According to this ḥadīth, the Prophet is reported to have said regarding adulterers, “God has come with a way pertaining to them: for the virgin with a virgin (bikr), one hundred lashes and a year’s exile, and the non-virgin with the non-virgin (thayyib), one hundred lashes and stoning.” Other versions exist with similar wording.
The employer’s wife: In yet another account, a man attempted to give a kind of compensation for his virgin son’s crime of adultery with his employer’s wife through a large payment of livestock. The Prophet ordered the virgin’s father to take back the goods. He then had the son lashed and exiled, and told the people to go to the woman and ask if she would confess; if she did, they were to stone her. She confessed, and they stoned her to death.
Sayings attributed to the Companions: In variations of an account attributed to ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb, ʿUmar affirmed the penalty of stoning, warning others not to be led astray by the absence of such a penalty in the Quran; he maintained that he saw the Prophet enforce it and that “we” (presumably referring to the first Caliphs) also practiced it. The versions of what is attributed to Umar vary significantly in their content, and some allude to a verse in the Quran that describes stoning (see below). Some accounts describe Alī as having both lashed and stoned a woman and then saying, “We lashed in accordance with the Book of God and stoned in accordance with the wont of the Messenger of God.”
The “stoning verse”: According to some reports attributed to ʿUmar, there was a verse in the Quran that read, “And the shaykh and shaykhah, stone them outright,” with some variation in wording, such as the inclusion of “when they commit adultery.” Shaykh and shaykhah mean “old man” and “old woman,” respectively, which those jurists who accept the stoning verse interpret to mean nonvirgins or married people. This “stoning verse” is often cited as an example of “abrogation of the text but not the ruling,” unlike the usual kind of abrogation in which the text remains, but its legal status is overruled by another verse. The central legal problem pertaining to stoning to death for adultery is that 24: 2 lays out a clear and detailed punishment for adultery, describing how and by whom the punishment is to be carried out, while making no mention of stoning or distinguishing between married and unmarried persons. In Islamic jurisprudence, abrogating or partly overturning an unambiguous text of the Quran requires a high standard for evidence— and it is only possible if one accepts that a ḥadīth can abrogate a part of the Quran, a view rejected by most religious authorities. The penalty of stoning is much more than an explanation or elucidation through the Prophet’s Sunnah of a general Quranic concept, as are, for example, the descriptions of how to pray or fast, which are not found detailed in the Quran, but which are transmitted in detail through Sunnah as recorded in the Ḥadīth. Rather, stoning is a more severe and different kind of punishment— indeed the harshest of all— applied to a class of people (married persons) not specified in the Quran. Elsewhere the Quran does explicitly assign different punishments for sexual misconduct, but these are to make the punishment of a slave half that of a free person (4: 25) and to make the punishment of any wife of the Prophet— should she commit such an act— double that of an ordinary person (33: 30; though this latter verse is not necessarily always interpreted in this way). The text of the Quran does not, however, distinguish between the categories of married and unmarried as they relate to zinā (“ adultery”) or faḥshāʾ (“ indecency”). Nor is there any other area in Islamic Law in which a distinction is made between young and old (shaykh); the nearest such distinction is between prepubescent children and adults, the latter of which are identified as those bearing full legal responsibility for their actions if they are sane. Thus, even if one can accept the existence of a verse that is no longer present in the Quran but is still legally binding, which notion does not rest on solid textual evidence, the use of shaykh and shaykhah (“ old man,” “old woman”) only serves to confuse the issue, since an old person can be a virgin and a young person can be married. Furthermore, the doubling (33: 30) and halving (4: 25) of the punishment for adultery is incongruous with the punishment of stoning to death, which unlike lashing can by definition be neither doubled nor halved. The stoning punishment would also complicate the interpretation of the punishment shall be averted in v. 8. Since v. 8 refers unambiguously to married women, the punishment would be stoning according to the widely accepted interpretation, but the only punishment mentioned in the passage is lashes.
With respect to the relevant aḥādīth, the various versions of individual stoning accounts— such as that of Māʿiz ibn Mālik— often contradict each other on important details and contain errors and inconsistencies, such as misquotations from the Torah that amount to paraphrases of later Islamic legal maxims or the Quran itself (such as mention of four eyewitnesses seeing the act “as if seeing a kohl stick going into a kohl container,” referring to a stick used to apply kohl, a black substance sometimes rubbed around the eyes, being inserted into its container).
There are, moreover, substantial incongruities between the different accounts. For example, in the cases of Māʿiz and the pregnant woman, the Prophet is portrayed as sparing no effort to give the confessor an opportunity to recant, while in the case of the Jewish couple no such efforts are made. In the case of Māʿiz, he investigates the matter thoroughly, while in the case of the employer’s wife, he simply sends a delegation to ask if she will confess and has her stoned with no similar stream of questioning. Some aḥādīth mention lashes and stoning combined, while others do not. Furthermore, some accounts mention banishment, but it is absent from other accounts. Though ʿUmar is said to have spoken of stoning, there is no record of either Abū Bakr or ʿUmar stoning anyone in the traditional histories. None of these ḥadīth accounts taken singly would seem to rise to the level of abrogating an unambiguous Quranic text, especially because they contradict each other, do not reinforce each other when they are taken together, and indeed seem to nullify each other. Despite this fact, many commentators and jurists do make the claim that the penalty of stoning to death is mutawātir, or “widely transmitted,” a technical term that refers to something so widely transmitted from disparate sources that it would be inconceivable for it to have been falsified. Beyond such ambiguities, some basic logical questions arise, which are mentioned by al-Rāzī as objections on the part of the Khārijites. The Quran describes many kinds of transgressions including theft and murder, but does not go into the same level of detail for them as it does for adultery, and thus it is implausible that, in the midst of this detail, stoning, which is a more grievous punishment than all others mentioned in the Quran, would go unmentioned. It is also argued that no solitary ḥadīth could overturn the plain sense of the Quran, much less on a question as momentous as imposing the severest of penalties. Jurists typically place the penalty of stoning for adultery in the category of ḥudūd (sing. ḥadd), referring to those corporal punishments that are mandatory once guilt is established. Another category of punishments, called taʿzīr, are those discretionary actions that can be taken by a legitimate political authority but that do not constitute Divinely mandated punishments. This distinction is not necessarily rigid, however, as it is widely accepted that ʿUmar suspended the ḥadd punishment for theft during a time of famine. Some have speculated that if indeed the Prophet did have people stoned, it was a taʿzīr, not a ḥadd. Among these jurists, some speculate that those incidents of stoning, even if taken as historical events, took place before the revelation of 24: 2, and thus 24: 2 is the final and abrogating punishment for adultery and stoning is at a maximum a possibility of taʿzīr. In one account, when the jurist al-Shaybānī asked the Companion ʿAbd Allāh ibn Abī Awfā about stoning, he affirmed that the Prophet did stone, but he did not know whether it was before or after the revelation of al-Nūr (the present sūrah).
Regarding the requirement that the lashing be witnessed by a group, there are disagreements over the minimum number required, some saying one or more, others saying four (corresponding to the number of witnesses necessary to ascertain the guilt of adultery), others saying two (a usual number for witnesses), and others saying three, which is the minimum number for being called a “group” (Q, Ṭ). Al-Qurṭubī, surveying the legal rulings, describes the punishment of lashes as follows: The lashes should land upon one’s back, but not the head; men are to expose their skin (according to some), but women retain a layer of clothing. They remain standing and are not bound. The whip to be used is described as neither too hard nor too soft, and the blows, although meant to cause pain, should not be so hard as to draw blood. The person administering the lashes is not to raise his arm high up so as to deliver a harder blow and should never let his armpit become visible (from raising his arm to strike). Some say that this limitation is realized by requiring the person to hold an object in his armpit while delivering the lashes. The punishment should be carried out by the most respected members of society and only under the aegis of a legitimate political and legal authority. In cases where a person’s health cannot withstand the blows, the conditions are modified. In one account, a very frail man was presented for punishment, but it was clear he would not survive it; so the Prophet ordered that a number of twigs corresponding to the number of lashes be tied together, and the man was struck once with the bundle.
More than one crucial dimension of the interpretation of the Quran comes into discussion regarding the punishment of stoning for adultery, including abrogation, the relationship between the Quran and the Ḥadīth, the authentication and comparison of competing accounts within the Ḥadīth, and the status of religious laws other than those of Islam. In contemporary discussions of stoning several Islamic authorities have raised serious doubts about the authenticity of those accounts that attribute stoning to the Prophet or to the early leadership of the Muslim community, basing this conclusion not only upon the punishment’s incongruity with the actually existing text of the Quran (setting aside the question of “abrogation of the text but not the command”), but also based upon the improbable nature of some of the aḥādīth adduced in its favor as well as their mutual contradiction. It is not implausible that the stoning punishment was a holdover from other local traditions (such as that of the Jews) that then came to be considered normative practice in Islam. Some jurists may have reasoned that since stoning is a part of Jewish Law and was not explicitly cancelled by Islamic Law, it could be employed in some conditions, and this act of discretion may have, over the course of time, risen to the level of general obligation; such a position would be supported by the account that describes the Prophet executing Jewish Law against the Jewish couple. One could further speculate that, for reasons of social cohesion, early authorities (after the death of the Prophet and the first generation) felt that the punishment of lashes was not sufficient a check on adultery (indeed, some contemporaries of the Prophet deemed the standards of evidence far too demanding, as mentioned in 24: 6– 9c) and believed that penalty of stoning to death had to exist as a disincentive on licentiousness, which could lead to social disintegration. Such speculation about the origins of this punishment is justified and worthwhile in the face of the evidence in favor of stoning to death— evidence that is equivocal at best — and of the Quran (setting aside the question of “abrogation of the text but not the command”), but also based upon the improbable nature of some of the aḥādīth adduced in its favor as well as their mutual contradiction. It is not implausible that the stoning punishment was a holdover from other local traditions (such as that of the Jews) that then came to be considered normative practice in Islam. Some jurists may have reasoned that since stoning is a part of Jewish Law and was not explicitly cancelled by Islamic Law, it could be employed in some conditions, and this act of discretion may have, over the course of time, risen to the level of general obligation; such a position would be supported by the account that describes the Prophet executing Jewish Law against the Jewish couple. One could further speculate that, for reasons of social cohesion, early authorities (after the death of the Prophet and the first generation) felt that the punishment of lashes was not sufficient a check on adultery (indeed, some contemporaries of the Prophet deemed the standards of evidence far too demanding, as mentioned in 24: 6– 9c) and believed that penalty of stoning to death had to exist as a disincentive on licentiousness, which could lead to social disintegration. Such speculation about the origins of this punishment is justified and worthwhile in the face of the evidence in favor of stoning to death— evidence that is equivocal at best and contradictory and untenable at worst. It is also important to mention that the condition set for the proof of adultery— four eyewitnesses to the very act— was such that this punishment was very rare in Islamic society.
(7) Amin Ahsan Ilahi
حالانکہ قرآن کو قرآن کے سوا کوئی دوسری چیز منسوخ
نہیں کر سکتی۔
دوسری روایت جو اس سلسلہ میں پیش کی جاتی ہے، دل پر جبر کر کے، میں اس کو نقل کیے دیتا ہوں
اس روایت کو نہایت کراہت کے ساتھ، محض اس لیے نقل کیا ہے کہ اصل حقیقت تک پہنچنے کے لیے راہ کی ان الجھنوں کو صاف کرنا ضروری ہے جو زنادقہ کی پھیلائی ہوئی ہیں اور ہمارے مفسرین اور فقہاء کی سادگی کی وجہ سے تفسیر اور فقہ کی کتابوں میں بھی ان کو جگہ مل گئی ہے۔ اس روایت پر غور کیجیے تو ہر پہلو سے یہ کسی منافق کی گھڑی ہوئی معلوم ہوتی ہے اور مقصود اس کے گھڑنے سے قرآن کی محفوظیت کو مشتبہ ٹھہرانا اور سادہ لوحوں کے دلوں میں یہ وسوسہ پیدا کرنا ہے کہ قرآن کی بعض آیات قرآن سے نکال دی گئی ہیں
دوسری بات یہ ہے کہ اگر یہ قرآن کی ایک آیت تھی تو اس کو نکال کس نے دیا جب کہ اس کا حکم یعنی سزائے رجم باقی ہے؟ آیت کو نکال دینے اور حکم کو باقی رکھنے کا آخر کیا تک ہے؟ اگر یہ قرآن کی ایک آیت تھی اور نکال دی گئی تو یہ اس بات کا ثبوت ہوا کہ رجم کا حکم پہلے تھا پھر منسوخ ہوگیا پھر اس سے رجم کے حق میں استدلال کے کیا معنی!
بہرحال یہ روایت بالکل بے ہودہ روایت ہے اور ستم یہ ہے کہ اس کو منسوب حضرت عمرؓ کی طرف کیا گیاہے حالانکہ ان کے عہد مبارک میں اگر کوئی یہ روایت کرنے کی جرأت کرتا تو مجھے یقین ہے کہ وہ ان کے دُرے سے نہ بچ سکتا۔ ہمارے فقہاء میں یہ بڑی کمزوری ہے کہ جب وہ اپنے حریف سے مناظرہ پر آتے ہیں تو جو اینٹ پتھر انھیں ہاتھ آجائے وہ اس کے سر پر دے مارتے ہیں۔ پھر یہ نہیں دیکھتے کہ اس کی زد خود دین پر کہاں تک پڑتی ہے۔
البتہ چونکہ میں خود رجم کی سزا کا قائل ہوں اس وجہ سے قرآن سے اس سزا کا ماخذ اور اس کا موقع و محل واضح کرنا اپنی ایک ذمہ داری سمجھتاہوں
‘‘ اس کے بعد ہم نے رجم کا ماخذ ان الفاظ میں واضح کیا ہے:’’’اَنْ یُّقَتَّلُوْا‘ یہ کہ فساد فی الارض کے یہ مجرمین قتل کر دیے جائیں۔ یہاں لفظ ’قتلٌ‘ کے بجائے ’تَقْتِیْلٌ‘ باب تفعیل سے استعمال ہوا ہے۔ باب تفعیل معنی کی شدت اور کثرت پر دلیل ہوتا ہے۔ اس وجہ سے ’تقتیل‘ ’شر تقتیل‘ کے معنی پر دلیل ہو گا۔ اس سے اشارہ نکلتا ہے کہ ان کو عبرت انگیز اور سبق آموز طریقہ پر قتل کیا جائے جس سے دوسروں کو سبق حاصل ہو۔ صرف وہ طریقہ اس سے مستثنیٰ ہو گا جو شریعت میں ممنوع ہے۔ مثلاً آگ میں جلانا۔ اس کے ماسوا دوسرے طریقے جو گنڈوں اور بدمعاشوں کو عبرت دلانے، ان کو دہشت زدہ کرنے اور لوگوں کے اندر قانون و نظم کا احترام پیدا کرنے کے لیے ضروری سمجھے جائیں، حکومت ان سب کو اختیار کر سکتی ہے۔ رجم یعنی سنگسار کرنا بھی ہمارے نزدیک ’تقتیل‘ کے تحت داخل ہے۔
ماعز بن مالک اسلمی کے بعد دوسرا بڑا واقعہ غامدیہ کا ہے جو قبیلۂ غامد (قبیلۂ جہنیہ کی ایک شاخ) کی ایک عورت تھی
اس کے بارے میں روایات میں جو تفصیلات ملتی ہیں، ان سے نہ اس کے کردار کے بارے میں کوئی معلومات حاصل ہوتی ہیں نہ یہ معلوم ہوتا کہ وہ شادی شدہ تھی۔ تھوڑی بہت تفصیلات جو بیان ہوئی ہیں، ان میں ماعز کے واقعہ ہی کی طرح بہت سے امور باہم متناقض ہیں
‘‘ خلاصۂ بحث: اس ساری بحث سے یہ بات واضح ہوجاتی ہے کہ رجم کی سزا کے جو واقعات احادیث کی کتابوں میں مذکور ہیں، وہ عام قسم کے زانیوں کے واقعات نہیں ہیں، بلکہ ان بدقماشوں کے واقعات ہیں
‘‘ خلاصۂ بحث: اس ساری بحث سے یہ بات واضح ہوجاتی ہے کہ رجم کی سزا کے جو واقعات احادیث کی کتابوں میں مذکور ہیں، وہ عام قسم کے زانیوں کے واقعات نہیں ہیں، بلکہ ان بدقماشوں کے واقعات ہیں
قرآن کی کوئی آیت قرآن کے سوا کسی دوسری چیز سے منسوخ نہیں ہوئی ہے اور یہ ناسخ و منسوخ، دونوں قرآن میں موجود ہیں۔ منسوخ ہونا تو الگ رہا، اگر کسی آیت کی تحدید و تخصیص بھی ہوئی ہے تو اس کے قرائن و اشارات یا تو آیت کے سیاق و سباق اور اس کے موقع و محل میں مضمر ہیں یا خود قرآن کے دوسرے مقامات میں موجود ہیں
(8) Surah 5/ 33-34
إِنَّما جَزاءُ الَّذينَ يُحارِبونَ اللَّهَ وَرَسولَهُ وَيَسعَونَ فِي الأَرضِ فَسادًا أَن يُقَتَّلوا أَو يُصَلَّبوا أَو تُقَطَّعَ أَيديهِم وَأَرجُلُهُم مِن خِلافٍ أَو يُنفَوا مِنَ الأَرضِ ۚ ذٰلِكَ لَهُم خِزيٌ فِي الدُّنيا ۖ وَلَهُم فِي الآخِرَةِ عَذابٌ عَظيمٌإِلَّا الَّذينَ تابوا مِن قَبلِ أَن تَقدِروا عَلَيهِم ۖ فَاعلَموا أَنَّ اللَّهَ غَفورٌ رَحيمٌ
“The punishment of those who wage war against God and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter; Except for those who repent before they fall into your power: in that case, know that God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.”
(9) Javed Ahmed Ghamdi
۔یہ اِس جرم کی انتہائی سزا ہے۔ اِس کی دلیل یہ ہے کہ قرآن مجید نے اِس کے بیان میں صفت کے صیغے اختیار کیے ہیں جو وقوع فعل میں اہتمام پر دلالت کرتے ہیں۔ لہٰذا یہ سزا صرف اُنھی مجرموں کو دی جائے گی جن سے جرم بالکل آخری صورت میں سرزد ہو جائے اور اپنے حالات کے لحاظ سے وہ کسی رعایت کے مستحق نہ ہوں۔ چنانچہ سزا کے تحمل سے معذور، مجبور اور جرم سے بچنے کے لیے ضروری ماحول، حالات اور حفاظت سے محروم سب لوگ اِس سے یقیناً مستثنیٰ ہیں۔ قرآن مجید نے اُن عورتوں کے بارے میں جن کے مالک اُنھیں پیشہ کرنے پر مجبور کرتے تھے، پوری صراحت کے ساتھ فرمایا ہے کہ اِس جبر کے بعد اللہ اُن کے لیے غفور ورحیم ہے۔** اِسی طرح زمانۂ رسالت کی لونڈیوں کے بارے میں بھی اُس کا ارشاد ہے کہ خاندان کی حفاظت سے محرومی اور ناقص اخلاقی تربیت کی وجہ سے اُنھیں بھی یہ سزا نہیں دی جا سکتی، یہاں تک کہ اُس صورت میں بھی جب اُن کے مالکوں اور شوہروں نے اُنھیں پاک دامن رکھنے کا پورا اہتمام کیا ہو، اُنھیں اِس سزا کی نسبت سے آدھی سزا دی جائے گی۔ یعنی سو کے بجاے پچاس کوڑے ہی مارے جائیں گے۔(
Surah 24/3 ()
الزّاني لا يَنكِحُ إِلّا زانِيَةً أَو مُشرِكَةً وَالزّانِيَةُ لا يَنكِحُها إِلّا زانٍ أَو مُشرِكٌ ۚ وَحُرِّمَ ذٰلِكَ عَلَى المُؤمِنينَ
(11) Dr. Mohammed Asad
Some of the commentators understand this passage in the sense of an injunction: "The adulterer shall not marry any but an adulteress or a mushrikah; and as for the adulteress; none shall marry her but an adulterer or a mushrik." This interpretation is objectionable on several counts: firstly, the Qur'an does not ever countenance the marriage of a believer, however great a sin he or she may have committed, with an unbeliever (in the most pejorative sense of this term); secondly, it is a fundamental principle of Islamic Law that once a crime has been expiated by the transgressor's undergoing the ordained legal punishment (in this case, a hundred stripes), it must be regarded, insofar as the society is concerned, as atoned for and done with; and, lastly, the construction of the above passage is clearly that of a statement of fact (Razi), and cannot be interpreted as an injunction. On the other hand, since adultery is an illicit sexual union, the verb yankihu, which appears twice in this passage, cannot have the customary, specific meaning of "he marries" but must, rather, be understood in its general sense - applicable to both lawful and unlawful sexual intercourse - namely, "he couples with". It is in this sense that the great commentator Abu-Muslim (as quoted by Razi) explains the above verse, which stresses the fact that both partners are equally guilty inasmuch as they commit their sin consciously - implying that neither of them can excuse himself or herself on the ground of having been merely "seduced".
