Quran and Hadith

minuteman wrote:   Reply to Andalus:  I cannot comment on all your points. Briefly, sis fatima has provided the material. I am looking into it. that Scholar (even though not my favored person) is a well known Hanafi scholar of Indo Pakistan. perhaps he also believed in the stoning too. I believe he did. i am not hiding anything. But it was his own quoted principle that matters of life and death cannot be left to the Hadith alone. Proof for them must come from the Quran. Yet he believed in the stoning of the adulteres.

The act of rajm is related through mass transmission. This is enough to validate the act.

Anyhow, i wrote about the Qiblah. There is no order in the Quran about facing the Jeroshlem. What do you say? But there is order to face Ka'abah. Prophet s.a.w.s. must have been acting on some order or guidance before the verse for change of Qiblah had been revealed. What was that guidance? Where is that guidance.

Allah was the only guidance of Prophet Muhammad (saw). There are two forms of revelation, the Quran is the recited "wahy", there is also an unrecited wahy.

The order for stoning an adulterer is not in the Quran. The prophet s.a.w.s. was doing it. Why and how?? You do not see any similarity in these two commands but I do.

You are assuming that the Quran is the only form of valid wahy. The Prophet (saw) was also guided through unrecited wahy. You are almost implying that the prophet (saw) made an error?

I admitted that if stoning was in practice after the passing away of the prophet s.a.w.s. then it will make the matter easy to believe. I am looking into the material provided by sis Fatima. I will let you know my views in due course. I would like to know your remarks about the killing of an apostate too. What is your opinion about that. Because that is also a serious matter involving life and death. Thanks. Keep thinking.

Under certain conditions, the blood of an apostate may be taken as the blood of an adulterer.

Keep in mind that it is extremely difficult to convict someone of these crimes. The condition for both is confession, and four witnesses is a second possible condition for adultery.

regards 

minuteman wrote:     The act of rajm is related through mass transmission. This is enough to validate the act. Mass transmission means person toperson like other matters of Sunnah??? What do you want to teach here??

No, something mass transmitted meaning "mutawatir", which means so many people narrated an event that it becomes impossible for the event to be fabricated. Not all hadith are mutawatir. That is simply basic science of hadith.

Quote:  Anyhow, i wrote about the Qiblah. There is no order in the Quran about facing the Jeroshlem. What do you say? But there is order to face Ka'abah. Prophet s.a.w.s. must have been acting on some order or guidance before the verse for change of Qiblah had been revealed. What was that guidance? Where is that guidance. Allah was the only guidance of Prophet Muhammad (saw). There are two forms of revelation, the Quran is the recited "wahy", there is also an unrecited wahy. That is a lose reply. Every one knows that Allah was the guide. That is what I have been telling you that the two cases are similar. In both cases, there must be some Wahi Khafi involved. But you did not agree.

I did not agree that the kibla event was relevant to the conext of the thread pertaining to rajm.

There is nothing that indicates that Surah An-noor dealt with a married individual.

You are assuming that the Quran is the only form of valid wahy. The Prophet (saw) was also guided through unrecited wahy. You are almost implying that the prophet (saw) made an error?  That is bad reply. Ann accusation. I had already replied to you in one of my posts that I do believe in the unrecited Wahi (Wahi Khafi). So why are you accusing me again for that. An apology may be due now.

Perhaps, but you need to clarify some of your statements. So if it is an apology you want, then you have it, I am sorry, but I ask you to be more clear and fully explain your statements.

So it is not a bad reply, the problem was that your intention was not clear, nor was your point.

Quote: I admitted that if stoning was in practice after the passing away of the prophet s.a.w.s. then it will make the matter easy to believe. I am looking into the material provided by sis Fatima. I will let you know my views in due course. I would like to know your remarks about the killing of an apostate too. What is your opinion about that. Because that is also a serious matter involving life and death. Thanks. Keep thinking.   Under certain conditions, the blood of an apostate may be taken as the blood of an adulterer. Keep in mind that it is extremely difficult to convict someone of these crimes. The condition for both is confession, and four witnesses is a second possible condition for adultery. regards  I do not want the blood of an apostate under certain conditions. Please reply properly whether any one who changes his religion (He may be a Muslim or a Jew or a Hindu), will he be killed according to the Islamic law???

You are asking a "complex question". Such a question has an unproven or unargued assumption that is buried in the premise of the the question. Your question was be like: Does the hand of the thief become chopped off or not, I do not want certain conditions, I want a proper answer. The apostate can be executed under certain conditions. I believe this, it is a part of the sacred law, and there are "conditions" that must be met.

Also I would like to know from you about the confession business from the Quran. I know that in a Hadith there a case of some one stoned due to his own confession, in the time of the Holy prophet s.a.w.s. But you want to make it a permanent law. Wedo not know what were the circumstances of thattime. Was it done before the revelation of Surah Noor? etc. I am not satisfied with your approach.

You keep coming back to "was it before surah An-noor".

1) Surah An-Noor does not indicate, with any explicit statement, that married people are covered.

2) I gave you a strong hadith that tells us that the Prophet (saw) knew about the 100 lashes for an unmarried person, along side the punishment for a married beliver.

3) I can think of at least three incidents from the top of my head where a confession was used. Here is one that II happen to have before me:

Narrated Abu Huraira and Zaid bin Khalid Al-Juhani:
A Bedouin came to Allah's messenger and said, "O Allah's Messenger! I ask you by Allah to judge my case according to Allah's Laws". His opponent, who was more learned than he, said, "Yes, judge between us according to Allah's Laws, and allow me to speak." Allah's Messenger said, "Speak." He said, "My son was working as a labourer for this man and he committed illegal sexual intercourse with his wife. The people told me that it was obligatory that my son should be stoned to death, so in lieu of that I ransomed my son by paying one hundred sheep and a slave-girl. Then I asked the religious scholars about it. They informed me that my son must be lashed one hundred times, and be exiled for one year, and the wife of this (man) must be stoned to death." Allah's Messenger said, "By Him in whose hands my soul is, I shall judge between you according to Allah's Laws. The slave-girl and the sheep are to be returned to you, your son is to receive a hundred lashes and be exiled for one year. You, Unais go to the wife of this man and if she confesses her guilt, stone her to death." Unais went to the woman next morning and she confessed. Allah's Messenger ordered that she be stoned to death. (Bukhari)

Surah An-noor is irrelevant to the notion of confession.

I am going to scrutinise the cases presented by Sis Fatima and then I will reply again. Until then you hold your horses please. If you like then try to check up about the important advice of the scholar who said that matters affecting life and death cannot be left to the Hadith only. Proof for them should come from Quran. Wassalam....

minuteman wrote:     Thanks for your post. I may use my sense as much as I have. You have experienced some of it. I cannot believe that verse of Surah Noor is about unmarried fornicator. It says "Zani" and "Zaniah". You tell me the meaning of the two words.

Someone who commits an illiegal sexual act. Not necessarily a married person, and an unmarried person, but a married or unmarried person, which means it (the word) is ambiguous and not "particularized". So my statement is correct. It can be an unmarried believer, and the hadith by prophet Muhammad (saw) backs my claim. I do not use my personal feelings and whims to make personal ijtihad in matters of faith or exegesis.

To me it means those who had intercourse without being husband and wife, without being married with each other. That is surely the meaning of Zani. And I believe that there is no secret meaning in the verse because Allah has said that these are the very clear well explained (Bayyan) orders. You say that they are not Bayyan. They have secret meanings. I don't believe that.

I have never declared a secret meaning, I simply used logical deduction, and evidence from the prophet (saw) himself. It has nothing to do with secrecy, but it has everything to do with reasoning and the ijtihad of mujtahids.

The next thing of trouble to you is that there no word in the Quran about stoning an adulterer to death. But you are insisting that the adulterer must be stoned to death.

It is not I who insists, it is the prophet Muhammad (saw), and the first three generations. I am sorry that you will not accept this.

Next, about the apostate, you have not replied fully. I know there are conditions for killing the apostate if the war is going on. Or if the the person who recanted, he may have killed some one after recanting... I cannot see any other condition for the killing of an apostate. But surely you may be knowing a few more. So let us have them. Thanks.

That is irrelevant to the thread and off topic. If you wish to discuss apostacy, then please, by all means I invite you to start a thread on it. If you start a thread, state your purpose and intention, not just a line that asks me to post what I know. My time is precious and I could potentially spend a great deal of time just trying to satisfy such an open ended request.

My belief aboutWahi Khafi is definite, no doubt. You cannot deny it at all. If I don't believe that the adulterer should be stoned, that is another matter. It is not necessary to make use of Wahi Khafi for that matter. There are many other points which prove the Wahi Khafi. I do not want to use it for the stoning.

If you do not believe an adulterer should be stoned, then either the prophet was wrong, the first three generation was wrong? If you believe in unrecited revelation, then either there is a mistake with the prophet (saw), or the first three generations, or both, or you are simply following your personal whims about which unrecited revelation to follow.

Rajm is not in the quran, but it is a part of the sunnah, mass transmitted, from the prophet (saw) of God himself, on orders from God Himself. If you select wahy based upon nothing more than mere feelings, then you have no solid, raitonal bases for your choice, but I do respect you for your opinion.  

regards

minuteman wrote:     Dear Andalus: My remarks are in blue. If you do not believe an adulterer should be stoned, then either the prophet was wrong, the first three generation was wrong? If you believe in unrecited revelation, then either there is a mistake with the prophet (saw), or the first three generations, or both, or you are simply following your personal whims about which unrecited revelation to follow. I am sorry. I do not believe that the prophet s.a.w.s. was wrong. Or his Khalifas were wrong. I believe in the unrecited revelation. But I do not want to use the unrecited revealtion to prove something extra-ordinary against the words of the Quran, against the recited Wahi. That is my final reply to you now.

Assalam Aleikum

But you have failed to show me where in the Quran the issue of rajm conflicts? You are asserting that in this case, unrecited wahy is in conflict with the recited wahy? You have not shown where this conflict is in the recited wahy?

If I follow your way then you may use the unrecited Wahi to create havoc. There will be no limit.

And yet my way is that of the ulema, for 1200 years, and yet I find no "havoc". How do you explain that my way is simply that of the ulema, and after 1200 years, no "havoc" has been created.

There is some kind of Mulla Islam that I do not believe at all. That is Abrogation of verses of the Quran, and forbidding the even peaceful propagation of the religion to non Muslims in the Muslim countries and so many other things. I do not believe that.

I am not sure I follow you?

After all those things are also being supported by some kinds of Hadith. Are they not?? So where will I end up??

You will have to clearify your point? I do not follow.

Rajm is not in the quran, but it is a part of the sunnah, mass transmitted, from the prophet (saw) of God himself, on orders from God Himself. If you select wahy based upon nothing more than mere feelings, then you have no solid, raitonal bases for your choice, but I do respect you for your opinion.  Thanks. You have admitted that Rajm is not in the Quran.

non sequitur. I never stated that it was, and not being their does not change my point or argument or the argument of the greatest ulema who have ever lived.

Yet you want to do it. That is not understood. Killing some one is not an ordinary matter. That mass transmission is not like Salat etc. And salat is prescribed in the Quran itself. I told you that if you use the unrecited Wahi then you will be killing the apostates. I do not support that too.

Not only do I want to do it, but my view is in agreement with the sahaba, the tabi'in, their followers, and the greatest minds that have ever lived. It seems my friend, that my view has a lot more weight.

I am not sure where you have learned about the science of fiqh, but a mutawatir ahadith can, indeed, be soley used to derive a hadd offense punishment. That is established by the majority of jurists. If you disagree, then you have used your own ijtihad to go against 1200 years of the greatest scholarship.  

The proof of unrecited Wahi is in the Quran and Hadith. But I request that you do not use that to kill any one please. I had told you a principle before, perhaps I did not state it completely.

You have stated it, the problem is that no such axion exists as far as a strong opinion amongst the ulema concerning a mutawatir ahadith establishing a hadd punishment. You can state someminor opinion untill judgement day, but it still does not mean that the principle exists such that a mutawatir ahadith cannot establish a hadd. I am talking about the four schools of fiqh, a majority of mujtahids that do not follow your personal axiom. I am sorry, I am going with the specialists of fiqh. 

Now I remember it much better. I request that you present that to some learned person without any attachments and ask if ot was true or not. That would be better.

Funny, I just happen to have a book of tafsir in front of me by a well known Hanafi scholar of Pakistan, and he states that a hadd can be established by a mutawatir ahadith, as do the other schools of fiqh. According to you, the unanimous ruling by the four schools of fiqh is wrong and so are the scholars who do not follow your axiom to the extant that you have?

I state that principle again: The serious matters such as of life and death and Halaal and Haraam cannot be decided on the basis of Hadith only. Proof for them should come from the Quran.

You must inform the great ulema of their dubious error!

You may please checkit up from some one. I am satisfied that I have explained things in all honesty. Wassalam.