Quran and Hadith

Angela wrote: abuzaid wrote: This thread was originally launched by angel....... She was asking about Quran and Hadith.. I think she is smiling like this  now. Well, actually, I'm more . I was more looking at a more general thing, but used stoning as a specific incident. I thought I had figured out a few things about Sharia and the roles of Hadith and Quran.......  now I'm just even more confused.  When you start pulling in opinions of men who aren't prophets...then it goes awry.

I understand your confusion given that you come from a gentile background where jurisprudence is nearly non existant in terms of Judaic legal philosophy and Islamic legal philosophy.

Keep in mind that Muslims do not view a revelation as something that just falls from the sky and something magical from heaven allows anyone to pick it up and derive law. FUrthermore, Christian need for law is nearly non-existant, and the main use of the Torah is too find Jesus in it.

For Muslims, we have a detailed path that we aim to walk. The generalities are not in dispute, but the details are something we aim to know.

The Prophetic scope of authority covers teaching the revelation, not just vocalizing the revelation. The scope of prophethood of Muhammad (saw) included particularizing various verses in the Quran.

His scope also included receiving revelation that is not recited. This source is looked upon as a valid source for exegesis of the Quran and for matters of jurisprudence.

This might be demonstrated with your bible. Unknown to most Christians, your TORAH was never meant to be interpreted without the Oral tradition, which is based upon the teachings and explanations of Moses. Trying to interpret the Torah without another source has never been a problem for Christians because you have no need to derive law.  

So we have a revelation, a prophet to explain it, and then we need something after the prophet, which would be the most knowledgable person who learned from the prophet of the revelation and gave instructions and explanations. The most learned became the one who was able to help the average worshiper in matters of religion.

Whether or not a man gives a ruling is irrelevant here,because we are not talking about just any men, but men who were students personally trained and approved of by the Prophet (saw)himself. Your faith has been defined my a man who never met Jesus, yet your faith is nearly defined by him (Paul). Paul was not a prophet. So as a Muslim, I would say that we would not go as far as Christians in following a man in terms of faith, but we do know that a scholar is an authority.

The excuses that the Quran is only talking about unmarried women seems rather week.  (my opinion)  More of an excuse.  Besides, the Hadith are not dated....how do you know if the stonings were before or after the revelation in the Quran?

It is not an "excuse", it is "exegesis", and the word in the Quran does not signify if the person is married or not, the word simply means "unlawful sex", and is ambiguous about the status of the person. It does not particularize.

The hadith are clear that the prophet (saw) ordered the lashes for unmarried men and women, and stoning for married men and women. There is absolutely no change in this behavior from the time of the Prophet until the third generation.

This act is so mass narrated that it would be impossible for a mistake to have been made.

Keep in mind that this interpretation has not been argued by the greatest minds that have lived in the last 1200 years because Muslims hate women or free love, but because the evidence provides such a sound and strong argument, and those who have stated otherwsie have based their opinion on a "weak" argument, and this group has been in such a small minority that it has never effected the status of rajm in Islam until the 20th century when some Muslims have decided it is more important to agree with secular kafirs than the Prophet and his companions.

As for the companions and what they did after Mohammed (pbuh)?  I don't mean any insult by this, but they were JUST men, they weren't Prophets.  Therefore, fallible.  Its all what God commanded isn't it?> Better safe than sorry.

The companions ordered stoning, and has nothing to do with fallibility. It has to do with "confidence". Stoning is so widely mass narrated that it is its own proof.

Narrated Ash Shaibani: I asked 'Abdullah bin Abi Aufa, 'Did Allah's Apostle carry out the Rajam penalty ( i.e., stoning to death)?' He said, "Yes." I said, "Before the revelation of Surat-ar-Nur or after it?" He replied, "I don't Know."

Uncertainty does not allow one to derive "any kind of certainty". This hadith is not the proof used for rajm, nor is it proof to discontinue it. This thread has supplied many of the accounts and the position for the use of stoning has been the strongest argument and put forth for 1200 years.

I appreciate your interest and patience in this thread.

Kindest regards