Quran and Hadith

Bismillah irrahman irrahim

Assalamu alaykum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wassalam

 In reply to Fatima, who wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bismillah irrahman irrahim

Assalamu alaykum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wassalam

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

There are two methods to determine adultery:

1) confession

2) four witnesses

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

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

You are going to have to prove your claim.

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

There is no debate about that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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