Lost verses of Quran
AbdulraHman Lomax
le...@cs.utexas.edu (James Lee) wrote:
>To add further light, Guillaume also said:
I'm not sure it is "light," especially without any source other than
Guillaume....
>Again, there is a tradition from A'isha, the prophet's wife, that a certain
>chapter which now consists of 73 verses once contained no less than 200,
>and that when 'Uthman compiled the Quran the missing verses could not be
>found. One of them was called the Verse of Stoning, and is said to have
>contained the order to stone a man or woman who had committed adultery. It
>cannot be affirmed with any certainty that this verse ever formed part of
>the Quran; it is more likely that it was either a genuine hadith of the
>prophet or very early invention of one of his followers.
Perhaps Guillaume has some citation for this hadith. I have never seen
it before. I will repeat what I have said elsewhere, however: it is
not an article of faith for us that there were no abrogated or
forgotten verses. We are free to disagree on this point.
>The fact remains
>that this verse is said to have been part of the original Qur'an. Many
>early authorities say so, and what is very significant is that the first
>Caliphs punished adultery by stoning; this is still the penalty prescribed
>in Muslim law-books, whereas the Quran (24:2) prescribes a hundred stripes.
>In this case there is not sufficient evidence in favour of abrogation to
>claim it as proof, though it remains to be explained why, if the Quranic
>penalty is scourging the shari'a should decree stoning.
> Guillaume, Islam, pp. 191
While I do have Guillaume's translation of the Sirat Rasul Allah, I do
not have his book, Islam.
>Does anyone have any idea what the hadith from A'isha is?
Not other than stated by Guillaume, though it is somewhat consistent
with the reports from 'Umar on the same subject.
>I have read, for eg, Yusuf Ali's commentary, that says that the Quran,
>sura 24:2's punishment of 100 stripes is for unmarried only, while
>death by stoning is for married adulterers, appealing to traditions as
>record in Bukhari and Muslim. I wonder, since I don't know Arabic,
>what the word for adultery is in sura 24:2, and how it permits this
>interpretation.
It is a gloss on the text; the words are az-zaaniyatu wa az-zaaniy,
i.e., those, female and male, who commit zina, which is usually
translated as fornication and sometimes as adultery.
For our non-English fluent readers, adultery means sexual intercourse
between a married person and a person other than the person's spouse,
whereas fornication is more inclusive: it includes all sexual
intercourse between unmarried persons. Thus adultery is a subset of
fornication, being fornication where one of the persons is already
married (to someone else).
The note, by the way, is not by Yusuf Ali but by the editors of the
Amana Corporation.
I would assume that the justification of the punishment of stoning
would be the hadith regarding it (though they are less than completely
clear), together with the concept that adultery is a more serious
crime than unmarried fornication.
AbdulraHman Lomax
mar...@gate.ioa.com
P.O. Box 25133
Asheville, NC 28813
Steve Walker
<mar...@gate.ioa.com> writes
>le...@cs.utexas.edu (James Lee) wrote:
>
q>>The fact remains that this verse is said to have been part of the
q>>original Qur'an. Many early authorities say so, and what is very
q>>significant is that the first Caliphs punished adultery by stoning;
q>>this is still the penalty prescribed in Muslim law-books, whereas the
q>>Quran (24:2) prescribes a hundred stripes. In this case there is not
q>>sufficient evidence in favour of abrogation to claim it as proof,
q>>though it remains to be explained why, if the Quranic penalty is
q>>scourging the shari'a should decree stoning.
>> Guillaume, Islam, pp. 191
>
q>>Does anyone have any idea what the hadith from A'isha is?
q>
q>Not other than stated by Guillaume, though it is somewhat consistent
q>with the reports from 'Umar on the same subject.
I believe it is "As-Sunan al-Kubra" of Al-Baihaiqi (vol 8, p.211) where
Ubayy is said to have recalled a time when Suratul-Razab (33) was the
same length as Suratul-Baqarah, which means it must have had at least
200 verses not found in its text today. I understand that this
collection of hadith is not regarded as being as reliable as the main
six works, but do not know exactly how reliable it is said to be.
--
Steve Walker
AbdulraHman Lomax
Steve Walker <s...@skwalker.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I believe it is "As-Sunan al-Kubra" of Al-Baihaiqi (vol 8, p.211) where
>Ubayy is said to have recalled a time when Suratul-Razab (33) was the
>same length as Suratul-Baqarah, which means it must have had at least
>200 verses not found in its text today. I understand that this
>collection of hadith is not regarded as being as reliable as the main
>six works, but do not know exactly how reliable it is said to be.
I cannot comment upon the Sunan of Bayhaqi, other than to note what
M.Z. Siddiqi says about it, which is that it is "particularly
revered." However, Bayhaqi is a late compiler, dying in 458 Hijra. I
would expect that the inclusion of hadith in the Sunan does not
necessarily mean that the hadith is strong.
Mr. Walker, where are you getting your information? Did you find this
hadith in Bayhaqi yourself, or are you relying on some other author?
Sura 33 is al-Ahzab, not al-Razab.