Stoning verses and Abrogation
qas...@ziplip.com
>I am involved in a discussion with some sisters where
>they disagree about stoning as the punishment for adultery.
It is practically impossible to get someone convicted for
adultery in Islam for a variety of reasons; but there is
no disagreement about stoning (rajm) as the punishment for
adultery. The Prophet, upon him peace, pronounced and
carried out rajm upon three married Muslims - one man and
two women - and two Jews, a man and a woman.
Stoning for adultery is mass-transmitted from the Prophet,
upon him peace, both as verbal injunction (Hadith "The
child belongs to the household where he is born and the
adulterer gets stones") and actual deed (stoning of Maa`iz
ibn Maalik, Allah be well-pleased with him) cf. al-Kattani,
Nazm al-Mutanathir (p. 105-106 §181-182). Furthermore, there
is complete consensus in the first three generations of Islam
- both in law and in its application by the Four Caliphs -
that the hadd of adultery for the non-married is stoning, cf.
Ibn Qudama, al-Mughni (8:158); Ibn Hajar, Fath al-Bari (12:118).
>i.e. some say there are no stoning verses on the Qur'an,
>whilst as far as I know, unmarried individuals get lashes
>and banishment, whilst married people get lashes and stoning.
There are three types of abrogated Qur'anic verses:
(1) recitation-abrogated and ruling-abrogated
(2) recitation-established and ruling-abrogated
(3) recitation-abrogated and ruling-established
The verses that concern stoning as the punishment for a
married person's adultery are of type (3) cf. al-Suyuti,
al-Itqan fi `Ulum al-Qur'an (Type 47 of the Qur'anic Sciences,
2:718 of the Mustafa al-Bugha 1993 2nd edition, Dar Ibn Kathir).
[Note: in the case of "forcible adultery" (zina bil-jabr)
i.e. rape - then the offender also faces death or (short of
enough proof) long-term imprisonment regardless of marital
status.]
See also Sa`d al-Mirsafi, Shubuhat Hawla Ahadith al-Rajm wa-
Radduha (Beirut: Mu'assasat al-Rayyan, 1994) and Anwarullah,
Criminal Law of Islam (Brunei: Ministry of Religious Affairs, 1995).
>Islamqa.com (salafi site?) gives several hadith
>showing how certain verses related to adultery in
>the Qur'an have been abrogated, according to the Sunnah.
This is not entirely correct, as clarified already.
(See separate post about the website quoted above.)
And Allah knows best.
Hajj Gibril
--
GF Haddad
Qas...@ziplip.com
G. Waleed Kavalec
> Wa `alaykum as-Salam:
>
> >I am involved in a discussion with some sisters where
> >they disagree about stoning as the punishment for adultery.
>
> It is practically impossible to get someone convicted for
> adultery in Islam for a variety of reasons; but there is
> no disagreement about stoning (rajm) as the punishment for
> adultery.
Salaam
Here we go again.
Why would Hajj Gibril tell people that there is NO DISAGREEMENT about
stoning?
This is easily proven to be incorrect. Just search the archives of
this newsgroup, for one thing.
But here is a short recap...
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 Allah,
if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of
the Believers witness their punishment.
-- An Noor 24:2
How on Earth have we gone from a 'maximum' punishment for public
adultery of 100 floggings, to a barbaric and cruel penalty of death by
stoning?
I say 'public' adultery is because according to the law of Allah, it
takes four witnesses to see the event of adultery, which makes this
only realistic in cases of people having sex in public.
And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and
produce not four witnesses (to support their allegations),-
flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence
ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors;-
-- An Noor 24:4
The answer for the above question is actually quite simple:
There are people who claim to be Muslims (those who Submit to Allah)
who are in fact Submitting to OTHER than Allah by taking laws He has
never decreed and FALSELY attributing them to Him (be He Glorified!).
Say: "Shall I seek for judge other than Allah? - when He it
is Who hath sent unto you the Book, explained in detail."
They know full well, to whom We have given the Book, that
it hath been sent down from thy Lord in truth. Never be then
of those who doubt.
The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfilment in truth and
in justice: None can change His words: for He is the one who
heareth and knoweth all.
Wert thou to follow the common run of those on earth, they
will lead thee away from the way of Allah. They follow
nothing but conjecture: they do nothing but lie.
-- Al Anaam 6:114-116
The words of Allah through the Qur'an tell us that the only authorized
law is the one contained in His book and in His words... Thus, the
people who profess a supreme love for Allah and His Messenger, yet
take their laws from OTHER than Allah, will in fact be declared as
Allah's enemies and will face serious consequences.
Say: "What thing is most weighty in evidence?" Say: "Allah
is witness between me and you; This Qur'an hath been revealed
to me by inspiration, that I may warn you and all whom it
reaches. Can ye possibly bear witness that besides Allah there
is another Allah?" Say: "Nay! I cannot bear witness!" Say:
"But in truth He is the one Allah, and I truly am innocent of
(your blasphemy of) joining others with Him."
-- Al Anaam 6:19
The IMPORTANT irony in this whole discussion is that the ONLY people
who threaten to use stoning in the history narrated to us by ALLAH
HIMSELF are the enemies of Allah and His Messengers:
Noah threatened with stoning by disbelievers
(Ash Shuara 26:116)
Abraham's father threatens Abraham with stoning
(Maryam 19:46)
Men in the cave scared of stoning by disbelievers
(Al KAhf 18:20)
The three messengers threatened with stoning by disbelievers
(Ya Seen 36:18)
Shu'aib threatened with stoning by his people
(Hud 11:91)
There is a sign here for those who think.
Also let me ask you: do you believe our Rabb would waste words?
Read!
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.
-- An Noor 24:3
Why would He bother to decree the marriage rights of someone who has
been stoned to death???
It is true that AT ONE TIME our Prophet allowed this punishment for
Muslims adulterers, but only UNTIL AN NOOR WAS REVEALED.
After that the ONLY occasion of Rajm decreed by Muhammad(saws) was the
case of JEWISH adulterers in Medina. Because, by the terms of the
Covenant of Medina, Jewish defendants were to be tried by Jewish law.
And that's what stoning is: Jewish law.
Personally, I find Muslim law far superior.
> There are three types of abrogated Qur'anic verses:
>
> (1) recitation-abrogated and ruling-abrogated
> (2) recitation-established and ruling-abrogated
> (3) recitation-abrogated and ruling-established
Again, here we have the Hadithist viewpoint that there is greater
authority than Allah. Do not be mislead.
#1 and #3 are abrogations by Allah Himself. HE HAS TOLD US that He
will protect the Rememberance, so any ayat He allows to be forgotten
IS REMOVED BY HIS WILL.
#2 is an attempt by misguided clergy to assume powers they do not
have; powers and autority that no one who wishes to obey the Qur'an
will recognize. Ayah of our Qur'an are in our Qur'an BY THE WILL OF
ALLAH.
Only He may remove them.
Peace
G.
vmi...@yahoo.com
G.Wa...@Kavalec.com (G. Waleed Kavalec) wrote:
> How on Earth have we gone from a 'maximum' punishment for public
> adultery of 100 floggings, to a barbaric and cruel penalty of death by
> stoning?
Apparently, "we" are not alone. The prophet(SAW), himself, did. There is
plenty of recorded evidence of instances of rajm, order by him(SAW).
In my view, the best argument we can make is to point out that the
prophet(SAW) himself would have preferred to be lenient where he could.
There is (at least) implied evidence of this (from hadith collection).
According to some reports, when ma'ez ibn malik Aslami was being stoned,
he became very agitated, tried to break free, and wanted to be taken back
to the prophet. Unfortunately the people stoned him, nevertheless. When
the prophet(SAW) heard about it, he was upset and said,"why did you not
bring him to me? May be he wiould have repented, and God(SWT) Might Have
Accepted his repentance".
In case of Ghamidiyya, who conceived as a result of zina, the prophet
sent her back TWICE, first until such time that she was deleivered of
the child, and a second time to have here suckle the baby until weaning
time. When she still returned after the weaning of the child, and insisted
on being purified of her sin, he reuctantly had her stoned. Would he(SAW)
have gone after her if she did not voluntarily come back? Personally, I
doubt it.
On another occasion when a person reported a married person's zina to
the prophet, he(SAW) was displeased, asking the reporter if he would have
incurred a loss by keeping his brother's (the sinner's) secret?
wasSalam
Viqar Ahmed
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service New Rate! $9.95/Month 50GB
Tomasz Antkowiak
Hmm... which interpretation to accept?
The companions -- Allah (swt) bless them all -- who experienced Truth
first hand, who stood next to Rasulullah (saw) willing to sacrifice
everything out of love for him (saw) and Allah (swt), and who after
the Prophet (saw)'s death blessed us by passing down the Qur'an and
sunnah to succeeding generations...
Or the modern day, western educated Muslims, who spend hours of
Internet debate declaring all the companions to have been wrong and
that after 1,400 years they have the correct answer...
A very tough situation indeed! (sarcasm)
May Allah (swt) bless the noble companions and the righteous
generations succeeding them, and may He protect them from any nonsense
thrown at them.
Allah Hafiz,
Tomasz
Tomasz Antkowiak
anj...@msn.com (Anjum) wrote in message news:<fdb9c2b0.03060...@posting.google.com>...
> Simple!
>
> Either these reports are fabricated, or someone simply made an honest
> mistake, or there is a logical explanation to reconcile the obvious
> contradiction between the Qur`an and a few ahadith.
Unfortunately it's not that simple. As Shaykh G.F. Haddad pointed out:
"Stoning for adultery is mass-transmitted from the Prophet,
upon him peace, both as verbal injunction (Hadith "The
child belongs to the household where he is born and the
adulterer gets stones") and actual deed (stoning of Maa`iz
ibn Maalik, Allah be well-pleased with him) cf. al-Kattani,
Nazm al-Mutanathir (p. 105-106 §181-182). Furthermore, there
is complete consensus in the first three generations of Islam
- both in law and in its application by the Four Caliphs -
that the hadd of adultery for the non-married is stoning, cf.
Ibn Qudama, al-Mughni (8:158); Ibn Hajar, Fath al-Bari (12:118)."
> We Muslims have made the same mistake that other Muslims (the
> followers of earlier revelations made) in that we abrogated the simple
> and clear injunction of the Revelation with other sources. And the
> Prophet himself warned us not to follow the path of the followers of
> earlier revelation.
Reflect what message your statement carries.
If you are willing to cast doubt -- and even reject -- something that
is Mutawatir by word and deed then it is possible to reject the
authenticity of Quran and other Sunnah, since they are based on
similar evidence.
> I understand the desire to obey the Messenger, but let's not forget
> God! And since the Messenger could not have disobeyed God, there must
> be a logical explanation of why the act of rajm has been attributed to
> the Messenger.
It is more than a desire, we are *OBLIGATED* to obey him (saw).
And the explanation was given by Shaykh G.F. Haddad:
------------
There are three types of abrogated Qur'anic verses:
(1) recitation-abrogated and ruling-abrogated
(2) recitation-established and ruling-abrogated
(3) recitation-abrogated and ruling-established
The verses that concern stoning as the punishment for a
married person's adultery are of type (3) cf. al-Suyuti,
al-Itqan fi `Ulum al-Qur'an (Type 47 of the Qur'anic Sciences,
2:718 of the Mustafa al-Bugha 1993 2nd edition, Dar Ibn Kathir).
------------
This explanation is more logical than dismissing the Prophet(saw)'s
action, suggesting he (saw) went against the Qur'an (Astafigurallah!),
declaring all the companions to be in error, and blaming the righteous
generations and Khaliphs for spreading this error.
We really need to overcome our nafs and gain a sense of humbleness.
Allah Hafiz,
Tomasz Antkowiak
vmi...@yahoo.com
> So then, how do we explain the reports that indicate that the Prophet
> himself allowed or commanded rajm?
> Simple!
> Either these reports are fabricated, or someone simply made an honest
> mistake,
Mistake in recording something that the prophet(SAW)taught, may be
understandable. But mistakes in recording events which thousands of
people must have seen, does not stand up to scrutiny.
> or there is a logical explanation to reconcile the obvious
> contradiction between the Qur`an and a few ahadith.
Yes, there is. And it is that the prophet(SAW) himself explained that
the punishment of lashes, in the Qur'an, is for unmarried muslims, and
that the punishment for a married muslim comitting zina, is rajm. This,
too, is recorded.
Perhaps, a second mistake to compound the first?
> But it is the Qur`an that supersedes and abrogates Hadith and not the
> other way around.
The question of superseding only arises where there is a conflict. But
there is none. We are talking about two different punishments for two
different transgressions, as explained above.
> Why?
> Because it is logical that the more authentic source abrogates the
> less authentic one.
Again, this would only make sense if there is conflict over more than
one punishment for the same offence. This is not the case.
> It is kindergarten logic!
Agreed.
> We Muslims have made the same mistake that other Muslims (the
> followers of earlier revelations made) in that we abrogated the simple
> and clear injunction of the Revelation with other sources. And the
> Prophet himself warned us not to follow the path of the followers of
> earlier revelation.
Exactly. Like the jews in Madina stoned the poor offenders, but spared
those in their own social club. And the prophet himself had to expose
the corruption to them in a well recorded instance.
> This point has been explained more eloquently and scholarly in the
> following article I have made reference to in other posts:
>
> "Fawariq -- The Distinctive Character of Tradition"
>
> http://www.muslimamerica.net/mp/fawariq.htm
If my own father taught me something that, in my judgement, went
against the established teaching from the Islamic sources, I would
not be able to accept it.
Like I said earlier, Allah(SWT) Is More Deserving that we should be
conscious of His Guidance.
> I understand the desire to obey the Messenger, but let's not forget
> God! And since the Messenger could not have disobeyed God, there must
> be a logical explanation of why the act of rajm has been attributed to
> the Messenger.
I am sorry. This is a baseless assumption.
Incidentally, some muslims in this forum would go to any length to
attribute to the prophet(SAW) things that he allegedly taught, but never
acted on them himself (e.g, group dhikr). It seems to me that we like to
run to the prophet when it suits us, and abandon him when it doesn't. May
Allah(SWT) Protect us all from such behavior.
Nima Rezai
> According to some reports, when ma'ez ibn malik Aslami was being
> stoned, he became very agitated, tried to break free, and wanted to
> be taken back to the prophet. Unfortunately the people stoned him,
> nevertheless. When the prophet(SAW) heard about it, he was upset and
> said,"why did you not bring him to me? May be he wiould have
> repented, and God(SWT) Might Have Accepted his repentance".
This is not rational: If any "criminal" could repent so easy, then hardly
any penalty
would take place. A thief repents, no sentence is carried out, and so do a
murderer,
an adulterer and a rapist. How easy and nice! No need for punishment law,
since every
person with half an inch of brain would prefer to repent and be spared from
stoning, etc.
This is again a proof that this (Hadith) saying of the prophet could have
never occured.
Moreover, how could the prophet know or figure out, whether God had
"accepted his
repentance" or not, if they had brought the convict back to him? Would God
send an angel
to tell the prophet: "The man is forgiven, do not stone him"?
> In case of Ghamidiyya.....
> When she still returned after the weaning of the child,
> and insisted on being purified of her sin, he reuctantly had her
> stoned.
"Purify" of a sin...Hmm, so someone could kill a thousand people, then be
punished and have a
smile on his face during the punishment since he knows that no more hell
fire will catch him?
"I killed, raped and stole, but they punished me and now all is fine again.
I go to paradise..."
> On another occasion when a person reported a married person's zina to
> the prophet, he(SAW) was displeased, asking the reporter if he would
> have incurred a loss by keeping his brother's (the sinner's) secret?
This is nonsense, too. According to the Quran the one who complains about
someone else
has to bring up four witnesses. But how should four people witness someones
sex actions
without having offended his/her privacy sphere???
Nima
thebit
> contradiction between the Qur`an and a few ahadith.
Perhaps this instance of stoning was carried out, not under the
directive of punishing the one who commits "Zina", but under Surah 5,
verses 33-34, which allow for those who which are considered morally
reprehensible, to be punished in a severe manner ("Taqteel"). So
perhaps those who were stoned for their crime, were punished so
because they commited rape or were prostitutes.
But God knows best.
Salaam `alaykum
vmi...@yahoo.com
> This is not rational: If any "criminal" could repent so easy, then hardly
> any penalty
> would take place.
Is it really such a novel concept? After all a murderer's life could
ne spared if the victims family forgive him and accept blood money
instead.
> A thief repents, no sentence is carried out, and so do
> a murderer,
> an adulterer and a rapist.
Punishments for theft and murder are explicitly prescribed in the Qur'an,
and any mitigation has to occur within any limits set therein.
Punishment for married adulterer was prescribed by the prophet(SAW), and
it is possible that he could have supplicated to God(SWT) for some level
of leniency, or prescribed some latitude himself (with Divine Permission).
Plus, this is not an isolated instance of this concept in practice. At
the time of takeover of Mecca, one of the people that RasulAllah had
ordered killed, at all costs, was Abdullah bin abi Sarh. Yet, after
repeated intercession from Uthman ibn Affan(RA), the prophet(SAW)
accepted his renewed allegiance and spared his life. How do you explain
it?
Lastly, when ma'ez confessed, it was at the urging and advice of his
friends and family, and he was, likely, under the impression that the
prophet(SAW) would find some way for leniency. This is substantiated
by his recorded words in his state of agitation. Begging people to take
him back to the prophet, he is reported to have said,"the people of my
tribe have killed me".
> How easy and nice! No need for punishment law,
> since every
> person with half an inch of brain would prefer to repent and be spared
> from stoning, etc.
Well, then Ghamidiyya (may Allah Forgive her) did not have even half a
brain. Because she turned herself in not just once, but thrice.
> This is again a proof that this (Hadith) saying of the prophet could have
> never occured.
Hardly. But I am not preaching to the converted.
> Moreover, how could the prophet know or figure out, whether God had
> "accepted his
> repentance" or not, if they had brought the convict back to him? Would
> God send an angel
> to tell the prophet: "The man is forgiven, do not stone him"?
And why not? Are you familiar with the device of "wahi al-Khafi" (the
Revelations to the prophet which have not been recorded in the Qur'an)?
> "Purify" of a sin...Hmm, so someone could kill a thousand people, then be
> punished and have a
> smile on his face during the punishment since he knows that no more hell
> fire will catch him?
> "I killed, raped and stole, but they punished me and now all is fine
> again. I go to paradise..."
Apparently, you are not aware of the comments the prophet made in regard
to her stoning and repentance; nor with the fact that he, himself, led
her funeral prayer.
> > On another occasion when a person reported a married person's zina to
> > the prophet, he(SAW) was displeased, asking the reporter if he would
> > have incurred a loss by keeping his brother's (the sinner's) secret?
>
> This is nonsense, too. According to the Quran the one who complains about
> someone else
> has to bring up four witnesses. But how should four people witness
> someones sex actions
> without having offended his/her privacy sphere???
If I were to confide to someone about a third person's sinful action, am
I necessarily formally accusing that person of the sin? I do not know
whether the person reporting to the prophet was formally accusing the
culprit. But he did put the prophet(SAW) in a spot where he had no
choice but to investigate. Let us say for the sake of argument that, in
a fully Islamic society you witnessed a illicit sex act about which there
is no doubt whatsoever in you mind.
What would you do?
1. Ignore it and keep quiet about it (thus condoning illicit sexual
liaisons in the society)?
2. Report it to the authorities?
3. Keep the secret, but speak to one or both parties privately (this is
what I would do)?
mydingansich
>>they disagree about stoning as the punishment for adultery.
>
>It is practically impossible to get someone convicted for
>adultery in Islam for a variety of reasons; but there is
>no disagreement about stoning (rajm) as the punishment for
>carried out rajm upon three married Muslims - one man and
>two women - and two Jews, a man and a woman.
>
>Stoning for adultery is mass-transmitted from the Prophet,
>upon him peace, both as verbal injunction (Hadith "The
>child belongs to the household where he is born and the
>adulterer gets stones") and actual deed (stoning of Maa`iz
>ibn Maalik, Allah be well-pleased with him) cf. al-Kattani,
>Nazm al-Mutanathir (p. 105-106 §181-182). Furthermore, there
>is complete consensus in the first three generations of Islam
>- both in law and in its application by the Four Caliphs -
>that the hadd of adultery for the non-married is stoning, cf.
>Ibn Qudama, al-Mughni (8:158); Ibn Hajar, Fath al-Bari (12:118).
Actually, I would argue that in modern times, it has become
increasingly easier for the Hudd punishment to be applied to adultery
because science can verify such things so as to facilitate the
requirements of numerous witnesses … then there was always the
mysterious pregnancy that would sometimes unfortunately lead to the
woman being stoned and the man remaining anonymous and unpunished …at
least in this world. Some of the requirements put on to applying the
severest punishments for adultery are quite funny. For example, I
remember coming across one scholar [sorry, can't remember who] that
said you can inflict the most serious punishment if you were unable to
pass a string between the two perpetrators bodies! Ha! Reading the
hadith on the matter, however, reveals that the criteria were not
nearly so strict. Later generations had an aversion in general to
applying the penalties of sin without respite that was not present in
the earliest generations. In actuality though, this is not about when
the severest punishments can and cannot be applied … it is, rather,
about the issue of abrogation.
Abrogation is one of the more interesting—as well as more
controversial—doctrines of jurisprudence. That it is an old practice
there is no doubt. Imam Malik records a saying in the Muwatta'
quoting ibn ‘Abbaas saying that the Companions ‘used to go by the most
recent practice of the messenger of God' [kaanou ya'khudhouna
bi-l-aHdath fa-l-aHdath min amr rasoul Allah]. Stoning adulterers is
not the only instance of abrogation of course. Another famous
instance—endorsed by imam Malik at least—deals with the bequest of
heirs and right of possession of inheritance or "al-Hiyaazah". For
example, while Q. 2.180 reads, "It is prescribed for you that if one
of you is at the point of death and leaves wealth, he should make a
bequest [al-waSiyyah] to his parents and relatives". Now, this verse
is seen as ‘mansoukha' or ‘abrogated' by verses dealing with specific
shares in inheritance (i.e., Q 4.11, 12, and 76). These are
essentially clever ways of clearing up ambiguities/contradictions
[depending on your perspective] within the Qur'an so that the precepts
are made into useable juridical form.
Why the problem of abrogation with stoning is so unique, however, is
not because it is an internal Quranic affair—at least not if one is
talking about the Quran we have with us at the present moment. The
problem is that the ahadith promoting stoning abrogate the Quranic
mandate to only give lashes to adulterers (Q. 24.4). Add another
tidbit into the mixture, and things become even more complicated.
According to various reports, there USED TO BE an ayah in the Qur'an
concerning stoning {i.e. ayat al-rajm}. It went as so: al-shaykhu
wa-l-shaykhatu fa-rjumouhumaa l-batta [Mature men and women, stone
them absolutely]. I took this from al-Muwatta ii. 168.
THUS,
>There are three types of abrogated Qur'anic verses:
>
>(1) recitation-abrogated and ruling-abrogated
>(2) recitation-established and ruling-abrogated
>(3) recitation-abrogated and ruling-established
>
>The verses that concern stoning as the punishment for a
>married person's adultery are of type (3) cf. al-Suyuti,
>al-Itqan fi `Ulum al-Qur'an (Type 47 of the Qur'anic Sciences,
>2:718 of the Mustafa al-Bugha 1993 2nd edition, Dar Ibn Kathir).
This is an interesting statement, for it points to a very complex and
perplexing process … Revelation and its declaration as in the Qur'an
appear in a tenuous and uncanny light in light the ahadith in this
instance. For, we have a ‘legendary' missing verse which Q. 24.4
abrogates but which seems to later be preserved in ahadith and have
enough weight to abrogate Q. 24.4 in return? So what is it? Stoning
or lashes?
There is a tradition in the Muwatta' worth taking a look at where we
see all of these principles coming together …
"Malik related to me from ibn Sihab from ‘Ubaydullah ibn'Abdullah ibn
‘Utba ibn Mas'ud that Abu Hurayra and Zayd ibn Khalid al-Juhani
informed him that two men brought a dispute to the Messenger of Allah,
may Allah bless him and grant him peace. One of them said, "Messenger
of Allah, judge between us by the Book of Allah!" The other, who was
the wiser of the two, said, "Yes, Messenger of Allah, judge between us
by the Book of Allah and give me permission to speak." He said,
"Speak." He said, "My son was hired by this person and he committed
fornication with his wife. He told me that my son deserved stoning
and I ransomed him for one hundred sheep and a slave-girl. Then I
questioned the people of knowledge and they told me that my son
deserved to be flogged with on hundred lashes and exiled for a year,
and they informed me that the woman deserved to be stoned." The
Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "By
Him in whose Hand my self is, I will between you by the Book of Allah.
As for your sheep and slave-girl, they should be returned to you.
Your son should have one hundred lashes and be exiled for a year." He
ordered Unays al-Aslami to go to the wife of the other man and to
stone her if she confessed. She confessed and he stoned her."
I took this from Mālik b. Anas, Al-Muwatta of Imam Malik ibn
Anas, trans. Aisha Adburrahman Bewley (London: Keagan Paul, 1989), p.
345… for those who want to reference it.
John Berg
date of the earliest record verse abrogation? Are there secondary sources
that support earlier dates?
John Berg
"Anjum" <anj...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:fdb9c2b0.03060...@posting.google.com...
>
ayman
most Sunnis:
vmi...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Mistake in recording something that the prophet(SAW)taught, may be
> understandable. But mistakes in recording events which thousands of
> people must have seen, does not stand up to scrutiny.
Tomasz Antkowiak wrote:
> Unfortunately it's not that simple. As Shaykh G.F. Haddad pointed out:
> "Stoning for adultery is mass-transmitted from the Prophet,
There are many examples of "mutawatir" lies being propagated about
events that were witnesses by thousands of people. All Sunnis have
heard the one about Jesus being the son of god (The God be most
exalted above what the Trinitarians describe), despite the prophet
Jesus being witnessed by thousands of people. In fact, that lie is
more "mutawatir" than any Hadith (or Sunnah).
In the same way that we know for sure that the Trinitarian's story
about Jesus is a lie, we also know for sure that the Sunni story about
Mohamed stoning to death adulterers is a lie: By using the Quran as
the criterion ("furqan").
qas...@ziplip.com wrote:
> There are three types of abrogated Qur'anic verses:
>
> (1) recitation-abrogated and ruling-abrogated
> (2) recitation-established and ruling-abrogated
> (3) recitation-abrogated and ruling-established
>
> The verses that concern stoning as the punishment for a
> married person's adultery are of type (3) cf. al-Suyuti,
> al-Itqan fi `Ulum al-Qur'an (Type 47 of the Qur'anic Sciences,
> 2:718 of the Mustafa al-Bugha 1993 2nd edition, Dar Ibn Kathir).
Of course any rational person can see the clear logical error in the
above. Recitation 24:1-9 establishes the ruling concerning "zina" for
both unmarried and married (see 24:6-9). So that corners all of Mr.
Al-Suyuti's voodoo science in a glaring contradiction because, in this
case, stoning actually falls under (2) and (3) TOGETHER. "Zina's"
recitation in 24:1-9 for a married person who reads it would fall
under (2) and then the alleged "stoning verse" would fall under (3).
What authority does Mr. Al-Suyuti or even the biggest Sunni scholar
has to abrogate any part of the Quran? Moreover, how dare the Sunni
hadiths recite the so-called lost stoning verse and claim that it was
part of "surat al-ahzab"?
(See the appalling corruption:
http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?hnum=6327&doc=0 )
Thank The God for preserving the Quran from the Sunni hadith
corruptions and the corruptions of those who are satisfied with them.
Peace on who followed the guidance,
Ayman.
_________
"And We made/put on their hearts covers that they understand it, and
in their ears a heavy weight, and when you mentioned/remembered your
Lord in the Quran alone, they turned away on their backs in aversion"
[17:46]
John Berg
is there one?
John Berg
"Anjum" <anj...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:fdb9c2b0.03060...@posting.google.com...
> G.Wa...@Kavalec.com (G. Waleed Kavalec) wrote in message verse in the
G. Waleed Kavalec
<snip>
> If you are willing to cast doubt -- and even reject -- something that
> is Mutawatir by word and deed then it is possible to reject the
> authenticity of Quran and other Sunnah, since they are based on
> similar evidence.
Salaam
It saddens me that very often when the supporters of one hadith
or another find their prize text under question, their knee-jerk
response is to claim that the Qur'an itself has the same weaknesses.
The Qur'an is the word of Allah.
Brother Tomasz, your Hadith is not.
> We really need to overcome our nafs and gain a sense of humbleness.
>
> Allah Hafiz,
> Tomasz Antkowiak
Exactly my point.
Allahualim
G. Waleed Kavalec
M shareef
> A'salaamu'alaikum,
Wa alaikum As'salam WRB
I cam across the following in Sahih Bukhari on rajam,
Sahih Al-Bukhari HadithHadith 8.816 Narrated by Ibn Abbas
'Umar said, "I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may
say, 'We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the
Holy Book,' and consequently they may go astray by leaving an
obligation that Allah has revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of
Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if
he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses or
pregnancy or confession." Sufyan added, "I have memorized this
narration in this way." 'Umar added, "Surely Allah's Apostle carried
out the penalty of Rajam, and so did we after him."
Sahih Al-Bukhari HadithHadith 8.804 Narrated by 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."
Any Body with the knowledge of the science of hadith can explain to us
why Ash Shaibani consulted 'Abdullah bin Abi Aufa and why not Ibn
Abbas (ra) may Allah be please with all of them. And why no Sahabi
differed with Umar (ra) on this issue if he was wrong in his
understandin of the Quran & Hadith on this important matter. Was there
a consensu among the Sahabas over this issue or they took different
meanings of the Surat-ar-Nur verses?. And Allah Knows best
M. Shareef
John Berg
moderators)
Look, I had to accept "social science" so I'm prepared to accept "science of
hadith" but please put some credibility behind it with citations of the
earliest documented instance of the words claimed. Remember, there was no
Qur'an as compiled today available to Muhammed or any of his contempories.
Perhaps someday we will dig up a piece of bone, a dried leaf, or shred of
leather with sufficient provenance to permit a vindication some of the
least supported hadith. Who knows? You may be proven correct but support
assertions in the meantime.
John Berg
Whose grandchildren told him of Santa Claus just yesterday.
"M shareef" <Without_a...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5e41c230.03060...@posting.google.com...
John Berg
Mutawatir
nafs
JOhn Berg
"G. Waleed Kavalec" <G.Wa...@Kavalec.com> wrote in message
news:47594d65.03060...@posting.google.com...
Saqib Virk
"John Berg" <john...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:42uEa.104389$M01.55068@sccrnsc02...
>
> Is there a definitive list of abrogated verses in the Qur'an?
SV
No verse of the Quran was or is abrogated by another verse or hadith.
--
Peace,
Saqib Virk
GF Haddad
> I hate to respond to you with a reference to an article I have read of
> someone I rather not identify -- and I hope that he won't mind
We follow truth, not names. If you find something true in Shakespeare
or the King James Bible you should not be loath to follow it, much
less quote it.
> referring to his article on SRI again -- and see if you can recognize
> him, but that may not be important.
>
> The article is: "Confusion of Law and Tradition" and it is at
> http://www.muslimamerica.net/mp/fawariq.htm
For the record, I told the author that what I read of this article was
sufficiently replete with errors to discourage me from finishing it. I
also happen to know he believes our mother `A'isha - Allah be
well-pleased with her - was 16 or 17 when she first cohabited, which
again shows ignorance of the Sunna.
One thing that you may be sure of is that for all my mistakes I do not
present SRI with outlandish opinions but reference them as a rule -
inviolate, to the best of my knowledge, in seven years - to the sawad
al-a`zam of the pious, knowledgeable men and women of this Umma and
THEIR understanding of the Deen.
This is my understanding of Allah Most High's commanding us to Ask the
people of Dhikr, to Hold fast to the Rope of Allah and not separate,
to Stick with the Truthful, and to Follow the path of the Believers.
Hajj Gibril
John Berg
valid?
Does any Muslim agree that any verse of the current canonical Qur'an can be
abrogated by a hadith?
John Berg
"Saqib Virk" <sv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:veajkvm...@news.supernews.com...
>
Denis Giron
In that case, I would like to ask Saqib for his interpretation of
Soorat al-Ma'ida 5:69 and Soorat al-Baqara 2:62 vis a vis Soorat Aale
Imraan 3:85 and Soorat an-Nissaa' 4:150-151. The first two verses seem
to state rather clearly that Jews, Christians, and *ANYONE* who
believes in God and the last day will have nothing to fear, while the
other verses seem to state just as clearly that non-Muslims
(particularly those who don't recognize all of Islam's prophets) have
harsh punishments coming their way. If the latter verses have not
abrogated the former verses (as is claimed by some), then we seem to
have a contradiction in the Qur'an. I'm curious how Saqib interprets
these verses.
hajj abujamal
Hash: SHA256
as-salaamu 'alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakaatuhu!
Anjum wrote:
> My Response (to Hajj Gibril):
> We follow the truth, not names too!
> Al-Qur`an!
> So who's/what's to settle the difference between us!
> How about the Book of God!?
I think you're taking the wrong approach in the way you consider
what Hajj Gibril says.
> Hajj Gibril adds:
> One thing that you may be sure of is that for all my mistakes I do
> not present SRI with outlandish opinions but reference them as a
> rule - inviolate, to the best of my knowledge, in seven years - to
> the sawad al-a`zam of the pious, knowledgeable men and women of
> this Umma and THEIR understanding of the Deen.
This, it seems to me, is the core of what Hajj Gibril brings to
SRI and his conversations with you. I think it's worth a little
elaboration. I have had the pleasure of exchanging a few private
eMails with him, and do not know what I might know in confidence
(probably nothing), so perhaps you might share some of my insight.
You will note from http://www.muslimamerica.net/mp/siyasa.htm#6 at
the end of the footnote this paragraph:
"What has been and continues to be required is the complete
dedication of indigenous students, entering Islam from an American
society in which it is visibly absent, to the acquisition of the core
material of Islam, transmitted professorially by life-long
practitioners, and their return equipped for the religious duty of
political administration. This is at once a necessary and a perilous
undertaking, yielding too many dangerous near-successes and too few
capable administrators. At work in America for a century, this
process has yet to produce enough public servants to equal the task."
I doubt anyone would contest my assertion that like myself, Hajj
Gibril has been personally engaged in that "complete dedication to
the acquisition of the core material of Islam, transmitted
professorially by life-long practitioners," for some time now. The
information he has acquired is rich and deep, as we have seen from
many of his detailed expositions on this forum. Of at least equal
importance, he has had the benefit of professorial transmission and
the immediate direction of masters of our sciences, including
tasawwuf. He is not what we in America call a "self-taught,
leaderless muslim," but a disciplined student with acute and sound
perceptions.
We are in a time when preachers abound like butterflies, with many
ill-informed partisans of various stripes all "contributing" their
personal opinions, often derived from pre-Islamic ignorance, to
discussions among muslims. Hajj Gibril is decidedly not among those,
what he brings to the discussion is well-established in the millat of
the Arab muslim empire and what we have inherited from those gone
before, with the additional advantage of coming to him through a live
chain of transmission of tasawwuf into which he has been fully
initiated so that some wish to call him "Shaykh Haddad" (although I
have not seen him acknowledge or accept this).
In some things, we appear to draw different views, at least
superficially, from what we have learned. This is not uncommon in
the history of Islam, that serious students, after some years of
study, have formed preliminary views on the basis of what has come to
them, and differ as a result of differences in what has reached them.
Among the "self-taught, leaderless muslims" of the American street,
such differences lead to scornful denunciations, summary dismissals,
and bad feelings, while it is certain that many of the views
expressed among such people have nothing to do with anything that has
come to any of us from the muslims of times gone by. Hajj Gibril,
however, brings us information of known provenance, of established
merit, and does so in a careful manner, with sufficient detail that
we may consider it in the contexts from which it came. The cases are
entirely different.
In short, what he says cannot be summarily dismissed because it
differs from what others opine. In time, his acquisition of
information will insha'ALLAH ripen into knowledge, following the
guidance and ordering of his teachers, and he seems most likely to
become in his own turn a transmitter of what has come to us. Our
task, should we wish to benefit from his efforts, is to assimilate
what he brings us, and develop understanding that includes it, not a
flawed understanding that ignores or dismisses what is unfamiliar, or
what it leads him to opine.
It is important to remember that much of what is discussed at SRI
is purely hypothetical and theoretical ~ few of the participants here
will ever be called upon to pass judgment on actual cases of apostasy
or adultery. Of those who may, who may include Hajj Gibril, any such
judgments will be formed on the facts before them at the time, and in
consideration of elements that never enter the discussions here at
SRI. It is a good idea to keep focus on the fact that we do not ~
cannot ~ know how we would decide an issue should such a decision be
entrusted to us. How we may differ here in our understanding of the
demands of shari'ah is not necessarily meaningful in terms of what
may be demanded of us in the administration of our communities.
But it is simply prudent to gather, from wherever we might
encounter it, the truths that have been so carefully preserved by our
predecessors. And in this, Hajj Gibril has proven his value in this
forum for a long time, and from all indications it will only get
better as his understanding evolves. It is better to consider what
he brings, before considering the merit of what he thinks he may do
with it.
was-salaam,
abujamal
- --
astaghfirullahul-ladhee laa ilaha illa
howal-hayyul-qayyoom wa 'atoobu 'ilaihi
Rejoice, muslims, in martyrdom without fighting,
a Mercy for us. Be like the better son of Adam.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQEVAwUBPudr9tkVFmFtvnSlAQg4sAf/ZA9Ylaexl5bE/NviQOaGxcEEPxMVI//J
WmGLR2IQASx0QmDN9vFUfU4oPWxebpDzcc2Jq/237rjCKMu8infxZBrNe8KtAjlU
IltuqYkYi2pvz8x/kjp0zjQEk+5uy8qrHcaa2QdiW/74mFWPWrt/+fRbvlmRukkq
dwCbwtuZRYOhxfUkfYy0+Li9ltIokMfhtmcikmmVkFKPAnH33IjCZB6wJ23OjIRn
5DMQEmHqEtOx6oXH8gtQhbgVSDfjhZUtfhNG7cvFEAmje5T7utuATYuLxjesmOy6
ioFJFHzQZ2uF5CpkGco/xm84yC9IofnSN6iYynKgMIeTuRpO6hQncw==
=2BcR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
G. Waleed Kavalec
news:bac0a2be.03061...@posting.google.com...
> The first two verses seem
> to state rather clearly that Jews, Christians, and *ANYONE* who
> believes in God and the last day will have nothing to fear, while the
> other verses seem to state just as clearly that non-Muslims
> (particularly those who don't recognize all of Islam's prophets) have
> harsh punishments coming their way.
There is no contradiction Denis.
Belief in Allah and His prophets is the fundamental requirement, along with
the duty to worship Him.
If you belief in JHVH and His prophets and have never been given the
chance to hear the revelation given to Muhammad(saws), AND you hold fast to
the belief in the Oneness of your Creator, AND you SUBMIT to Him then you
are at your core a Muslim (one who Submits to Allah).
You aren't going to judged on your LABEL.
The same concept applies to Christians, but they have a harder row to hoe as
their clergy have led them away from Taweed (the onenessof God).
Peace
G.
Altway
I do not see that the Quranic verses regarding
lashing of adulterers abrogates stoning.
I do not think that all laws are in the Quran
or that laws that are not in the Quran cannot be valid.
It has been my understanding that lashing was
meant for fornication between unmarried people
and stoning was meant for married adulterers.
However, in so far as stoning is not mentioned in
the Quran, I would have taken his to mean that
stoning is not obligatory, but those who are
appointed as judges could prescribe it if circumstances
warranted.
As the preservation of the Quran has been promised
I understand this to mean that the Quran is exactly in the state
in which it is meant to be. So the question of what was or was
not in the Quran in the past is irrelevant.
---
Hamid S. Aziz
Understanding Islam
www.altway.freeuk.com
.
Altway
"Denis Giron" <denis...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bac0a2be.03061...@posting.google.com...
> > No verse of the Quran was or is abrogated by another verse or hadith.
> In that case, I would like to ask Saqib for his interpretation of
> Soorat al-Ma'ida 5:69 and Soorat al-Baqara 2:62 vis a vis Soorat Aale
Imraan 3:85 and Soorat an-Nissaa' 4:150-151. The first two verses seem
to state rather clearly that Jews, Christians, and *ANYONE* who
believes in God and the last day will have nothing to fear, while the
other verses seem to state just as clearly that non-Muslims
(particularly those who don't recognize all of Islam's prophets) have
harsh punishments coming their way. If the latter verses have not
abrogated the former verses (as is claimed by some), then we seem to
have a contradiction in the Qur'an. I'm curious how Saqib interprets
these verses.
Comment:-
"seem to sate" is correct for you.
Here are the verses you mention:-
"Verily, those who disbelieve in Allah and His messengers and desire to make
a distinction between Allah and His messengers, and say: We believe in some
and disbelieve in others, and desire to take a midway course between the
two. These are the misbelievers, and We have prepared for misbelievers
shameful woe! " 4:150-151
"Verily, those who believe and those who are Jews, and the Sabaeans, and the
Christians, whosoever believes in Allah and the Last Day, and does what is
right, they shall not fear, nor shall they grieve." 5:69
Why do you think that these verses contradict each other and the acceptance
of one requires the abrogation of the other?
Why do you not make the effort to understand them so that there is no
contradiction, seeing that the Quran asserts that everything in it is
consistent?
It seems obvious that there can be no agreement between those who try to
understand and those who look for faults - between the positive and negative
attitude
and also betwee the narrow and the wider view.
The Quran tells us in one verse that we should not pray while drunk (4:43)
and in another it forbids us to drink
alcohol (5:90). Does the one abrogate the other? No. It supercedes it. But
the verses are there to show us how changes are brought about gradually -
Alcohol consumption was not suddenly forbidden. Apart from this there are
many other kinds of drunkenness which must be avoided.
The verses in which abrogation is mentioned state:-
"They who misbelieve, whether of those who have the Book or of the
idolaters, would fain that no good were sent down to you from your Lord; but
Allah specially favours with His mercy whom He will, for Allah is Lord of
abounding Grace. Nothing of our revelation do We annul or cause be
forgotten, but We bring (in place) one better or the like thereof. Knowest
thou not that Allah is Able to do all things ? " 2:105-6
You will find, if you put the verse in the context of the surrounding verses
that abrogation
refers to previous circumstances and laws (the revelations and ayas refer
not only to the verses of the Quran but also to things and events in
nature). Conditions of life do change over the years
and things are forgotten or become inappropriate. There is not only
horizontal change but also vertical evolution. The conditions of life in
the time of Moses (saw) were different than those in the times of Jesus
(saw) and later in the times of Muhammad (saw). The instructions of Jesus
superceded those of Moses but not in everything. Similarly those of
Muhammad supercede those of Jesus.
G. Waleed Kavalec
news:105543856...@doris.uk.clara.net...
>
> I do not see that the Quranic verses regarding
> lashing of adulterers abrogates stoning.
> I do not think that all laws are in the Quran
> or that laws that are not in the Quran cannot be valid.
Salaam Alaikum
Brother Hamid, I can't qute reconcile your view with these verses...
Say: "Shall I seek for judge other than Allah? - when He it is
Who hath sent unto you the Book, explained in detail."
They know full well, to whom We have given the Book, that it
hath been sent down from thy Lord in truth. Never be then of
those who doubt. The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfilment
in truth and in justice: None can change His words: for He is
the one who heareth and knoweth all.
-- Al-Aname 6:114-115
This Qur'an is not such as can be produced by other than Allah;
on the contrary it is a confirmation of (revelations) that went
before it, and a fuller explanation of the Book - wherein there is
no doubt - from the Lord of the worlds.
-- Yunus 10:37
A Revelation from (Allah), Most Gracious, Most Merciful;-
A Book, whereof the verses are explained in detail;- a Qur'an in
Arabic, for people who understand;-
Giving good news and admonition: yet most of them turn away,
and so they hear not.
-- Fusilat 41:2-4
You can also look at Al-Anaam 6:38, Yusuf 12:111, and Al-Isra17:12.
> It has been my understanding that lashing was
> meant for fornication between unmarried people
> and stoning was meant for married adulterers.
That is the crux of our discussion. This "understanding" has been left
unchallenged for too long. Many hadith bring us evidence of rajm by our
Prophet(saws). But we must first remove from consideration those which may
have occured prior to An-Noor. Then we must remove those involving Jewish
adulterers brought for judgement under the Covenant of Medina.
The remaining, MUCH smaller, body of reports are far less of a credible
counter to the obvious contradictions between rajm and other verses in the
Book of Allah(swt).
> However, in so far as stoning is not mentioned in
> the Quran, I would have taken his to mean that
> stoning is not obligatory, but those who are
> appointed as judges could prescribe it if circumstances
> warranted.
Part of the objection goes beyond stoning not being mentioned in the Quran.
Stoning IS most assuredly mentioned in the Qur'an. Numerous times in fact.
And EVERY place in the Qur'an that stoning is mentioned, it is something
threatened by evil men *against* believers.
As best I can tell we are enjoined in the Qur'an from killing, and this
includes those who are appointed as judges, except for a small and
well-define set of conditions. So any such 'circumstance' would *have* to
fall under the pale of one of those conditions.
> As the preservation of the Quran has been promised
> I understand this to mean that the Quran is exactly in the state
> in which it is meant to be. So the question of what was or was
> not in the Quran in the past is irrelevant.
Not entirely. Only Allah(swt) can remove an ayat from the Qu'ran.
Therefore, if He did this, and it was the alleged rajm ayat, then He did it
for a reason. Whatever the reason we had best obey!
> ---
> Hamid S. Aziz
> Understanding Islam
> www.altway.freeuk.com
Masalaam
G. Waleed Kavalec
-----------------
Surely Allah does not change
the condition of a people
if they do not change themselves.
-- Quran Ar-Rad 13:11
Altway
"G. Waleed Kavalec" <G.Wa...@kavalec.com> wrote in message
news:GsOdnUdF1tN...@intertex.net...
> > I do not see that the Quranic verses regarding
lashing of adulterers abrogates stoning.
I do not think that all laws are in the Quran
or that laws that are not in the Quran cannot be valid.
> Brother Hamid, I can't qute reconcile your view with these verses...
> Say: "Shall I seek for judge other than Allah? - when He it is
Who hath sent unto you the Book, explained in detail."
They know full well, to whom We have given the Book, that it
hath been sent down from thy Lord in truth. Never be then of
those who doubt. The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfilment
in truth and in justice: None can change His words: for He is
the one who heareth and knoweth all.
-- Al-Aname 6:114-115
Comment:-
Asalam 'alaikum,
I am sure you know the following verse (and there are many others):-
"O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger and those in authority
amongst you; and if ye dispute (quarrel or argue) about anything, refer it
to Allah and the Messenger, if ye (in truth) believe in Allah and the Last
Day; that is better and fairer in the end." 4:59
I take this verse seriously..
But I do not insist that stoning should be reinstated.
I know, of course, that people want to select verses and interpret things
according to their own preferences and prejudices.
Hence the need for proper authority with knowledge, insight and
righteousness.
---
Hamid S. Aziz
www.altway.freeuk.com
.
vmi...@yahoo.com
> "O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger and those in
> authority amongst you; and if ye dispute (quarrel or argue) about
> anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if ye (in truth) believe
> in Allah and the Last Day; that is better and fairer in the end." 4:59
You have clearly misunderstood. Either that, or you are responding
based on your emotions.
The above verse has exceptions, some which we now know, and others
we may find out in future depending upon political correctness. For
instance, in case of adultery, it is perfectly alright to ignore the
Messenger, and return the matter to respectable Mo'iz Amjad and/or
Javed Ghamidi, and/or Amin Ahsan Islahi.
Have you not seen many knowledgable God Fearing believers in this
forum do just that? So trust in their judgement, and do not forget
that you may have to answer to Amin Ahsan Islahi on the Day of
Judgment.
Here is hoping that you will be less emotional in future.
wasSalam
Viqar Ahmed
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service New Rate! $9.95/Month 50GB
Altway
<vmi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20030614151411.127$u...@newsreader.com...
> > "O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger and those in
authority amongst you; and if ye dispute (quarrel or argue) about
anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if ye (in truth) believe
in Allah and the Last Day; that is better and fairer in the end." 4:59
> You have clearly misunderstood. Either that, or you are responding
based on your emotions.
Here is hoping that you will be less emotional in future.
Comment:-
I could say the same about you, but it would be no argument
and enlightens no one.
So though I admit that I might be wrong, I would suggest that you study
a bit more deeply.
thebit
> "ignore the Messenger"!
A standard smear tactic, used by all sides. Resorting to emotionally
charged cliches is a common method used, very often, to stifle honest
questioning and criticism.
However, I do agree we cannot, and must not, let good honest, dialogue
turn into a contest on personalities, contemporary or traditional.
Personally, even though I do hold to an opinion on one side of the
fence, I would be happy to see a thorough criticism of it, which would
force me to reconsider what I hold to be correct. As yet I have not
seen one. Still looking.
Salaam
vmi...@yahoo.com
> My Response:
>
> This is a most unfortunate post from someone for whom I have great
> respect due to his intelligence, sincerity, and knowledge. The sarcasm
> in this post has not escaped me.
I did not expect that it would.
> What Viqar is suggesting is that the opponents of rajm are guilty of
> disobeying the Prophet (peace be upon him, his family, and his
> righteous companions)
This is not correct. But they are guilty of suggesting that the teachings
and practice of the prophet(SAW) can be put aside. And what irritates me,
forgive my being blunt, that they do not advance any basis on which this
is justifiable.
>, which would be akin to me suggesting that the
> proponents of rajm are guilty of disobeying God because God has
> clearly mentioned 100 lashes that (in my -- and others --
> understanding abrogates rajm)!
Why limit it to us *only*? As I pointed out in an earlier post to
Br. Waleed, the prophet himself (ma'adAllah) was guilty of disobeying
Him, as is widely reported.
> The rejection of rajm as part of the Islamic Law is not new. Even the
> ahadith in which the alleged missing verse on rajm from the Qur`an is
> reported, is the implication that there was a fiqH dispute that was
> being resolved. In other words, the rejectors of rajm have existed for
> a very long time.
And your point is? There is no issue of fiqh in here. The opinion of
jurists only matters in issues which are not dealt with directly by the
Qur'an and/or prophetic sunnah. Where God(SWT), or barring Him the prophet,
has stipulated on a specific matter, it is not permissible for any other
believer, no matter what his or her stature, to advance their own alternate
resolution. This is a *Qur'anic injunction*.
In view of this explicit injunction, your above logic is unacceptable.
> Maulana Ameen Ahsan Islahi was not your run-of-the-mill, average,
> mullah! Rather, he was a scholar of the stature of Maududi in terms of
> his knowledge of the Qur`anic and Hadith sciences as well as fiqH, and
> other relevant subjects.
Forget Maulana Islahi, or any other Maulana. I myself have the highest
regard for Maulana Islahi. We are not debating his stature.
If you want to make resort to a jurist - any jurist - you first have to
show that a fiqhi situation exists; i.e, the issue of adultery has not been
dealt with either in the Qur'an, or in the sunnah of the prophet. Only
then am I willing to consider opinions of any jurists in this matter.
> I still remember the time when he left Jamaat e Islami. At that time,
> he was as knowledgeable on Islam as Maududi was. They were both two
> huge pillars in the Jamaat.
Irrelevant. I do too, as I am probably a bit older than you are.
> Mian Tufail Muhammad, who followed Maududi as the Amir of Jamaat e
> Islami, has very nice and respectful things to say about Maulana Ameen
> Ahsan Islahi in his translation of a great Sufi master, Ali Hajwari's
> book, in which he stated that he considered him as one of his
> teachers.
Again, irrelevant. What does it have to do with the issue at hand?
> Viqar, it is unfortunate that you blamed the rejectors of rajm to
> "ignore the Messenger"!
It was not accidental. It was deliberate. The onus is on you to show that
you are *not* ignoring the Messenger in this matter. I shall be too happy
to retract my comments.
> No one is ignoring the Messenger!
> Let's make it clear once more!
> No one is denying the importance of the Prophetic Model, as has been
> stated time and time again!
No point in re-iterating this ten thousand times, if your actions do not
back up your proclamations.
> Your accusation is false and extremely counter-productive!
If it is false, I shall be happy to retract and seek your forgiveness.
But I cannot just sit by and let your position go unchallenged; not when
there is potential of conveying incorrect impression to non-muslims,
or less knowledgable muslims. SRI is read by a lot of people. And muslims
have a collective duty to see to it that what is projected about Islam is
sound.
Either your position is incorrect, or is mine. I have made my argument
based on the known record passed down to us. I did not imagine it, or
invent it myself. And I, personally, have not called you, or anyone who
differs with me, any names.
For this, you have accused me of being speculative, irrational, and
argumentative based on emotions. Are you in your right mind? What God
Forsaken basis do you have to publicly accuse me, or any other muslim
poster in this manner? Have you already become that big for your boots?
> What we have here is that two groups of people have reached a
> different conclusion on this issue from the same sources on Islam!
Then put forth your basis, and leave it at that. You have no right to
make derogatory assumptions about others.
> Because, they have used methodologies of research and interpretation
> that are slightly different from each other.
And what is this methodology? Could you explain it to me please? What
methodolgy authorises the muslims today to overrule the prophet's decision,
and under what conditions?
> Scholars who reject rajm as part of the timeless Law of Shari'ah
> acknowledge that their position is a minority one.
Apparently, you don't. To you, the proponents of rajm are emotional,
irrational, raving fanatics intent upon stoning people to death at the
first available opportunity.
Do you know for a fact, what I personally feel about rajm?
> They are all sincere in obeying the Messenger!
Ridiculing someone without basis, is not sincere obedience to the
Messenger.
> So there is no need to sarcastically charge us for disobeying the
> Messenger!
> It would be akin to us charging you that you are disobeying God!
Frankly, I don't give two hoots about what you charge me with. I do not
post here, or anywhere else, in order to win popularity contests, but out
of a sense of duty. As long as I have done that, I have something to
answer with on the DOJ.
> So, let's refrain from them!
By all means.
Altway
<vmi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20030615234022.694$D...@newsreader.com...
> anj...@msn.com (Anjum) wrote:
> Frankly, I don't give two hoots about what you charge me with. I do not
post here, or anywhere else, in order to win popularity contests, but out
of a sense of duty. As long as I have done that, I have something to
answer with on the DOJ.
Comment:-
Unfortunately I and others have noticed that some people wish to
spin Islam so as to conform to Western values.
And people have certainly interpreted the Quran and Hadith to
suit the prejudices or interests of various rulers and power holders in
the past. They wish to ingratiate themselves for various reasons.
This is one reason why we have several sects and conflicts
of opinions.
And all of them claim to be impartial.
It is not, therefore, something new.
Charges and counter-charges are not likely to get us anywhere.
vminai either follows one set of scholars rather than another
or else presents himself as a scholar in opposition to others.
There does not seem to be any reason why one should accept
what he asserts and not what others assert.
One has to make one's own studies, meditations and prayers.
However, this question of stoning remains unimportant until
there is an Islamic State and there are Muslim Jurors who have to
make the desicisions. They will have to be experts and will
also have to take into consideration
the circumstances and needs of the times.
Until such times this controversy is futile.
(On the other hand someone might wish to be thought of as "civilized".
But this would not work, because the critics would still find other things
e.g. lashing and cutting of hands for theft as barbaric. But perhaps it will
be denied that this is in the Quran or it will be asserted that it has some
other meaning.)
--
Hamid S. Aziz
.
asimm...@yahoo.com
> > mullah! Rather, he was a scholar of the stature of Maududi in terms of
> > his knowledge of the Qur`anic and Hadith sciences as well as fiqH, and
> > other relevant subjects.
>
> Forget Maulana Islahi, or any other Maulana. I myself have the highest
> regard for Maulana Islahi. We are not debating his stature.
>
You made a sarcastic comment on the referencing of certain names that
follow his line of thought. AND IF YOU READ CORRECTLY, you would have
understood that none of the scholars quoted have rejected the STONING
punishment. What they have argued is that the punishment of stoning
does not fall under the punishment of adultery, which the Quran
stipulates as 100 lashes but of spreading corruption in the land, i.e.
punishment of Maidah.
Javed Ghamidi has very clearly and thoroughly demonstrated from the
hadeeth that reference the Prophet (S) as passing a judgement of
stoning has not given sufficient context to understand the background
of each case.
> Only
> then am I willing to consider opinions of any jurists in this matter.
>
Obviously, this becomes a problem when one does not even bother to
read what they have written in this regard.
G. Waleed Kavalec
news:20030615234022.694$D...@newsreader.com...
> anj...@msn.com (Anjum) wrote:
> > What Viqar is suggesting is that the opponents of rajm are guilty of
> > disobeying the Prophet (peace be upon him, his family, and his
> > righteous companions)
>
> This is not correct. But they are guilty of suggesting that the teachings
> and practice of the prophet(SAW) can be put aside. And what irritates me,
> forgive my being blunt, that they do not advance any basis on which this
> is justifiable.
Salam alaykum kataba rabbukum AAala nafsihi alrrahmata annahu
We make no claim that the teachings and practices of the prophet(SAWS)
can be put aside.
We claim that his teachings and practices have been misrepresented, either
through human fallibility or as a result of deliberate machinations of
Shaitan.
And we most assuredly have advanced a very solid basis justifying the
beleif that rajm is not the intended law of Allah.
> Why limit it to us *only*? As I pointed out in an earlier post to
> Br. Waleed, the prophet himself (ma'adAllah) was guilty of disobeying
> Him, as is widely reported.
And and as I have replied elsewhere, rajm prior to An-Noor was the
law from the older scripture, so... no disobedience there.
And in Medina, under the covenant, our Prophet(saws) honored his oath,
as is required by Allah, and allowed Jewish law to apply to Jewish
defendants,
so... no disobedience there.
Once we set these two collections of reports aside as not relevant to
*current*Muslim*law*, the 'widely reported' incidents you site become
far narrower. And MAY in fact have involved more than just zina.
Meanwhile there are a whole series of tough questions regarding the
contradictions between the beliefs od the... murajameen?.. and the Qur'an.
Instead of standing on dogma, brother, LOOK at those questions. Perhaps,
just perhaps, it is possible that 1400 years ago a truth got trampled or a
falsehood got favored.
To stop searching for the truth, to sit back and say 'the scholars of old
already settled this, we don't have to think', THIS is to fail to
investigate as we are ordered to do.
So do we get the courtesy of answers to those questions?
> > Viqar, it is unfortunate that you blamed the rejectors of rajm to
> > "ignore the Messenger"!
>
> It was not accidental. It was deliberate. The onus is on you to show that
> you are *not* ignoring the Messenger in this matter. I shall be too happy
> to retract my comments.
Are you satisfied yet?
...
> Frankly, I don't give two hoots about what you charge me with. I do not
> post here, or anywhere else, in order to win popularity contests, but out
> of a sense of duty. As long as I have done that, I have something to
> answer with on the DOJ.
Excellent. Let us all pray to find the truth.
>
> Viqar Ahmed
>
Masalaam
G. Waleed Kavalec
vmi...@yahoo.com
> vminai either follows one set of scholars rather than another
> or else presents himself as a scholar in opposition to others.
I am curious as to how you arrived at this conclusion?
Firstly, I am not, nor do I consider myself, a scholar of Islam.
Secondly, when it comes to the nitty gritty, I will *only* accept
the opinion of a scholar *if* it has at its root either the Qur'an,
and if Qur'an is silent on the subject, then Sunnah.
If neither the Qur'an nor Sunnah have teachings to deal with a particular
issue, then, strictly for myself, I will study opinions of as many jurist
as I can get access to, and go with the one that gives me the feeling of
being closest to the spirit of Islam. This means, gneerally, not just dry
legalism, but accent on kindness, forgiveness, leniency, and, above all,
fairness and justice. In such cases, even if I were to express my preferred
view (not very likely), I shall not, under any circumstances, insist on it
for *anyone* else. On DOJ, I only have to answer for my own actions.
Therefore, I have no axe to grind between this or that scholar.
Lastly, if understanding of Islam cannot be accomplished by a very
ordinary muslim, such as myself, without recourse to this or that
scholar each step of the way, then what is the use of this faith. It is
for only for a very small subset of humanity.
In my posts, do you find emphasis on teachings of scholars, or ultimate
recourse to the Qur'an and Sunnah?
In contrast, just listen to the barrage of posts I am being bombarded with.
First Muhammad Asad, then another jurist, then Amin Ahsan Islahi, Javed
Ghamidi, MOiz Amjad, and so on.
And Shaykh Fadlallah Haeri,five times a day.
Where is it all going to stop? What the hell is going on?
vmi...@yahoo.com
> Viqar stated:
>
> they are guilty of suggesting that the teachings and practice of the
> prophet(SAW) can be put aside.
>
> My Response:
>
> No, they are NOT!
I used the word "suggesting", meaning they are not doing so on purpose.
And, it is clear that they are not.
But, practically speaking, it amounts to the same thing.
To reject a practice of the prophet(SAW), is to suggest that it CAN be
put aside. There is no other way around it.
So tell us. Under what conditions, and on what authority?
> Not more than YOU are guilty of suggesting that the teachings of the
> Qur`an, the Word of God, can be put aside!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you recall, you first started by totally denying that the prophet
ordered rajm.
It was either fabricated. Or, someone made an honest mistake.
This was followed by the invitiation to read a jurist's opinion. Why?
I will read a jurist's opinion if I believe that neither Qur'an, nor
Sunnah, deal with an issue.
Are you making my faith the monopoly of scholars and jurists, without whose
sanction I am not allowed to think, knowing that the sources of Islam are
the Qur'an and Sunnah? Have we now added the opinions of scholars to the
list as well?
Time out please! Where do I unsubscribe?
This was immediately followed by the views of Muhammad Asad on zina.
Then the assertion, that Maulana Islahi disagrees with rajm (which BTW, you
had not studied yourself).
But it was *necessary* that this fact should be rammed down my throat.
Then, for reasons unknown to me, it dawned upon you that the prophet(SAW)
*did* practice rajm.
So, it wasn't fabricated, or honest mistake after all. Was it, then, just
speculation on your part earlier on? Or, *solid* evidence, like Br. Waleed
suggests?
Was it rational? Emotional? Or just your democratic right(which is fine
with me)?
All this time I had myself, personally, not said anything other than that
I don't have to take into consideration the opinion of any maulana. And,
that it was fine if you did not accept rajm, as long as you also accepted
that it is a *minority* opinion. The crux of your half a dozen posts every
day, has been that rajm is not the punishment for adultery in Islam? Is
this how a *minority* view has to pushed down the majority's throat?
By all means, have whatever opinion you want. Whether it makes you less
muslim, as muslim, more muslim, i really NONE OF MY BUSINESS. I have NEVER
said that it is.
Then the low blows started. The proponents of rajm have no evidence to
present; they are illogical; irrational; emotional.
When I stated that if the prophet ordered rajm, thousands of people must
seen it, you concluded that I must be *speculating*. Well, it seems the
prophet did order rajm. I don't know about you, but Br. Waleed, at least,
thinks so. So thousands of people *must* have seen it. I was, likely, *not*
speculating.
What, then, was the basis of publicly accusing me of that? Do you have
permission from Shaykh Fadlallah in this regard? He is going to cover for
you on the DOJ?
At this point, I had still not said anything yet.
Then, more straws to cling to. Rajm must have been practiced before the
revelation of al_noor. Which makes me wonder why, in a separate hadith, the
prophet was reported to have said that lashes are for unmarried fornicator,
and that the punishment for adultery (i.e., zina my a married person)is
rajm.
Now, if he said this before al-noor was revealed, how did he know about the
lashes? There is no mention of lashes for zina in the qur'an prior to
al-noor.
So, he probably said that to EXPLAIN that the injunction in al-noor is for
a separate situation.
Thus, in staying with rajm, he(SAW) was not ABROGATING the Qur'an, but
supplementing it.
Sheesh! THERE GOES THE THEORY THAT I AM ADVOCATING PUTTING ASIDE
THE QUR'AN.
But, hey! Wait a minute.
This latter hadith could have been fabricated?
Or, be an honest mistake! That would solve the problem, would it not? Let
us not forget, though, that surmising such is *not* speculative in the
least. It is *solid* evidence.
And, at any rate, we are not out of trump cards yet. For rajm to be
acceptable as punishment for adultery, it boils down to this. There must
be recorded instances of rajm, in the prophet's lifetime, with his
sanction, *after* the deen was *completed.
Let us see now. The prophet lived after that day ALL OF ABOUT THREE MONTHS.
Now, in his ten years in Madinah, how many recorded cases of adultery do
we find? Two, possibly three, no more than four. AND ALL SELF CONFESSED.
Not as if the police was finding a dozen culprits a month committing
adultery in Madinah.
NO sir. Not even *ONE*.
So, at the rate of four per ten years, how many were likely to occur in
the 3 months (one-fortyth of 10 years) that he lived. Gosh! He blew it.
He should have had someone stoned for the heck of it, just so we could
have some *solid* evidence that rajm is *really* the punishment for
adultery even after the deen was completed.
Forgive me. My logic seems to be deserting me.
I must be getting emotional again.
Or, succumbing to my nafs! Why do I keep forgetting about that crystal
ball that you have?
Altway
"Anjum" <anj...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:fdb9c2b0.03061...@posting.google.com...
> > Unfortunately I and others have noticed that some people wish to
> > spin Islam so as to conform to Western values.
> If this is directed against those who reject rajm for adultery as part
of the Islamic Law, then, with all due respect, you are 100%
wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> Let me make this clear!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I DO NOT WISH TO SPIN ISLAM SO AS TO CONFORM TO WESTERN
VALUES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment:-
I have not accused anyone, but merely stated a known fact.
It refers to both sides of any argument.
I have never accused anyone, specially when I cannot possibly know their
inner state -
so why take this personally?
I have also indicated that many of those who do the spinning claim to be
sincere.
I would add that many are quite unaware that they do the spinning.
People can be and are conditioned by a culture.
And that this spinning does not occur only in connection with religion
but also in every other kind of thinking.
> > However, this question of stoning remains unimportant until
there is an Islamic State and there are Muslim Jurors who have to
make the desicisions. They will have to be experts and will
also have to take into consideration
the circumstances and needs of the times.
> > Until such times this controversy is futile.
> When someone presents rajm as part of the Islamic Law on SRI, do you
> expect those who reject it to stay quiet and do not present their
arguments against it? If so, then what are we doing here on SRI in the
first place? The last time I checked, SRI was to "discuss" Islam!
Comment:-
I have not silenced you but added my own comments.
I could ask you the same question - do you expect me to be silent
when people are so dogmatc?
But as I have indicated I have some reservations and am not dogmatic.
I am perfectly aware that the Quran does not advocate rajm, but that it
was allowed for a time by the Prophet (saw) and by God in the past.
I am also perfectly aware that the Quran teaches forgiveness and mercy
which allows the severity of laws to be modified (24:2).
But it is also true that
the Quran forbids such mercy if that causes the evil to spread, thereby
causing the reversal of mercy. e.g. it is forbidden to be merciful to
aulterers.
That is how seriously it is taken.
It is also my contention, also based on the Quran that the first source of
Islam
is Allah Himself, and not the Quran, as He sent many Prophets and Scriptures
and that the Quran itself is validated by the inspiration of Allah not just
to the Prophet
but Muslims also understand the Quran as a revelation..
"(A sect of the people of the Book say:) Do not believe save one who follows
your religion. Say (unto them): Verily, the (true) guidance is the guidance
of Allah (alone), that any one should be given like what ye are given. Or
would they dispute with you before your Lord. Say: The Bounty is in the hand
of Allah, He gives it to whom he pleases, for Allah is All-Embracing,
All-Knowing." 3:73
---
Hamid S. Aziz
www.altway.freeuk.com
..
vmi...@yahoo.com
else need read anything into it.
asimm...@yahoo.com wrote:
> You made a sarcastic comment on the referencing of certain names that
> follow his line of thought. AND IF YOU READ CORRECTLY, you would have
> understood that none of the scholars quoted have rejected the STONING
> punishment. What they have argued is that the punishment of stoning
> does not fall under the punishment of adultery, which the Quran
> stipulates as 100 lashes but of spreading corruption in the land, i.e.
> punishment of Maidah.
No, but they reject it as punishment for adultery. Perhaps Maulana Islahi
has a detailed discussion on this in his commentary on Surah Noor. I do not
have access to it.
The basis of their argument, that stoning must have been done according to
the injunction in surah al-Maida, I find to be far from convincing after
reading it. Normally, I wouldn't mind giving detailed reasons for why I
think so, but firstly I am no scholar or jurist of Islam, and secondly, the
discussion at hand has degenerated to the point that I am fully convinced
it will be of no use. Neither of these considerations, though, compel me
to accept an argument, which I find totally unconvincing,simply because it
has been advanced by a scholar of note.
> Javed Ghamidi has very clearly and thoroughly demonstrated from the
> hadeeth that reference the Prophet (S) as passing a judgement of
> stoning has not given sufficient context to understand the background
> of each case.
I have read Javed Ghamidi' sarticles in Sept 2002 issue of "Islamic
Renaissance", and I I am sorry to say that I do not find his argument
in this matter to be either very clear, or thorough. It seems more like
an attempt to grab at the ear by putting one's arm around their neck.
But it is his, or may be Maulana Islahi's, opinion at the most. There is
no basis in recorded sunnah to justify it. However, you, and others have
every right to hold that opinion. That is not the issue over here. You
also have the right to make whatever claims you want to make on the basis
of that opinion. Just don't expect that those who find it totally
unconvincing, to change our view based on it.
> > Only then am I willing to consider opinions of any jurists in this
> > matter.
> Obviously, this becomes a problem when one does not even bother to
> read what they have written in this regard.
I don't see any problem with that. If a matter has been dealt with
via the Qur'an and Sunnah, there is really no need to read what
every scholar has to say about it. That is, at least, my understanding
of Islam. And I am quite content with.
vmi...@yahoo.com
> vmi...@yahoo.com wrote in message
> > And what is this methodology? Could you explain it to me please?
> Here is an illustration of the methodology:
> Qur`an --> Sunnah --> Hadith --> Other Books written by non-Prophets
> Certainly, if one were to go like this:
> Other Books --> Hadith --> Sunnah --> Qur`an
> then one would reach a different "understanding" of rajm.
It seems to me, based on certain other posts of yours, that we have a
fundamentally different view of Sunnah.
For you, Sunnah ONLY EXPOUNDS the Qur'an, and that is the ONLY role
of the prophet's teaching. The prophetic model simply exemplified how
to live by the Qur'an. THE QURAN IS OTHERWISE COMPLETE. The prophet's
life merely explains it.
I, at least, do not share this restricted view. Neither does the Qur'an
limit it as such. The prophetic model DOES constitute an ADDITIONAL
source, where the Qur'an does not directly deal with an issue.
It is, in fact, by extending this view that we come up with a logical
basis for the opinion and works of jurists and scholars (at least for
ahl asSunnah wal jama'ah), i.e. fiqh, as a third source of Islamic law.
If the Qur'an has dealt with all possible scenarios for all times, and
the prophet has exemplified how to live by the Qur'an, why should we
bother with fiqh at all?
vmi...@yahoo.com
"G. Waleed Kavalec" <G.Wa...@kavalec.com> wrote:
> We claim that his teachings and practices have been misrepresented,
> either through human fallibility or as a result of deliberate
> machinations of Shaitan
What is the basis of this claim? Could you please explain.
> And we most assuredly have advanced a very solid basis justifying the
> beleif that rajm is not the intended law of Allah.
Please forgive me. You and other may see a *solid* basis. I do not.
What I have seen are opinions and speculations. That is not solid
evidence to me.
> rajm prior to An-Noor was the
> law from the older scripture, so... no disobedience there.
> And in Medina, under the covenant, our Prophet(saws) honored his oath,
> as is required by Allah, and allowed Jewish law to apply to Jewish
> defendants,
> so... no disobedience there.
This is not correct. There are at least two instance of muslim adulterers
having been stoned, possibly more.
I have asked before if there is available research to show that incindents
of rajm only occured prior to the revelation of al-noor. I have neither
seen that post on my server (which was approved, BTW), nor a response to
it.
> Once we set these two collections of reports aside as not relevant to
> *current*Muslim*law*, the 'widely reported' incidents you site become
> far narrower. And MAY in fact have involved more than just zina.
Three take away one leaves two. That is hardly narrowing. Of course, any
thing is possible. But is it credible? When I look at the recoords of other
events which may have a bearing on this issue, I doubt the credibility of
that assertion.
> Meanwhile there are a whole series of tough questions regarding the
> contradictions between the beliefs od the... murajameen?.. and the
> Qur'an.
A series of tough questions can be posed w.r.t just about anything that is
in Islamic law. We may have to throw out the whole thing if we take this
approach.
The essence of any faith is not in legalistic arguments.
> Instead of standing on dogma, brother, LOOK at those questions. Perhaps,
> just perhaps, it is possible that 1400 years ago a truth got trampled or
> a falsehood got favored.
Sure. Fourteen hundred years later, billions of people are living without
Islam.
Why not start looking at Islam itself with a microscope? Did Muhammad(SAW)
even exist? Could he have been possessed? There are people who claim to be
messengers after him, whom we reject as mistaken, misguided, deluded, or
just plain deliberately false. Could Muhammad(SAW) have been mistaken,
misguided, deluded, or just plain deliberately false?
Anything is possible.
Why not re-submit the whole gamut to a critical historical and logical
inquiry all over.
> To stop searching for the truth, to sit back and say 'the scholars of old
> already settled this, we don't have to think', THIS is to fail to
> investigate as we are ordered to do.
Certainly I am not claiming that *scholars of old* have last word on
anything. But I do believe that the Qur'an and Sunnah do. If we cannot
accept that and, forever, have to depend on a set of new scholars to
rework everything, can we make any progress whatsoever?
To me, this is a Pandora's box; a niightmare.
> So do we get the courtesy of answers to those questions?
Do you mean the dreaded *half stone*?
> > > Viqar, it is unfortunate that you blamed the rejectors of rajm to
> > > "ignore the Messenger"!
> >
> > It was not accidental. It was deliberate. The onus is on you to show
> > that you are *not* ignoring the Messenger in this matter. I shall be
> > too happy to retract my comments.
>
> Are you satisfied yet?
Yes, I am satisfied that they are not ignoring the messenger, at least not
deliberately. And I do apologize to Anjum and you and others, if that is
what I have conveyed to you.
wasSalam,
Altway
---
Hamid S. Aziz
www.altway.freeuk.com
<vmi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20030618004201.873$n...@newsreader.com...
> Firstly, I am not, nor do I consider myself, a scholar of Islam.
> Secondly, when it comes to the nitty gritty, I will *only* accept
the opinion of a scholar *if* it has at its root either the Qur'an,
and if Qur'an is silent on the subject, then Sunnah.
If neither the Qur'an nor Sunnah have teachings to deal with a particular
issue, then, strictly for myself, I will study opinions of as many jurist
as I can get access to, and go with the one that gives me the feeling of
being closest to the spirit of Islam. This means, generally, not just dry
legalism, but accent on kindness, forgiveness, leniency, and, above all,
fairness and justice. In such cases, even if I were to express my preferred
view (not very likely), I shall not, under any circumstances, insist on it
for *anyone* else. On DOJ, I only have to answer for my own actions.
> Therefore, I have no axe to grind between this or that scholar.
Comment:-
Very good.
Sorry for the misunderstanding which resulted from the
words you used. it is on those that I was commenting.
> Lastly, if understanding of Islam cannot be accomplished by a very
ordinary muslim, such as myself, without recourse to this or that
scholar each step of the way, then what is the use of this faith. It is
for only for a very small subset of humanity.
Comment:-
If the opinions of anyone unaided were to be trusted then we would not need
Prophets, Saints, or Scholars at all, and no teachers, professors, schools
or colleges.
However, it is true that those whose actions are righteous are better than
those who
simply know and do not act accordingly.
> In my posts, do you find emphasis on teachings of scholars, or ultimate
recourse to the Qur'an and Sunnah?
In contrast, just listen to the barrage of posts I am being bombarded with.
First Muhammad Asad, then another jurist, then Amin Ahsan Islahi, Javed
Ghamidi, MOiz Amjad, and so on.
And Shaykh Fadlallah Haeri, five times a day.
Where is it all going to stop? What the hell is going on?
Comment:-
Quran and Sunna are understood differently by different people and that is
why
there are discussions, arguments and controversies.
There is also a difference in depth of understanding.
Some people like to seek knowledge and deepen understanding.
But if it is all confusing and you wish it to stop there is really a simple
solution.
No, I am not trying to be sarcastic - it really is best to avoid that
which might damage understanding or faith.
G. Waleed Kavalec
news:20030618172901.852$R...@newsreader.com...
> I don't see any problem with that. If a matter has been dealt with
> via the Qur'an and Sunnah, there is really no need to read what
> every scholar has to say about it. That is, at least, my understanding
> of Islam. And I am quite content with.
>
> Viqar Ahmed
Salaam alaikum
The problem brother is that MEN declare that "a matter has been dealt with
via the Qur'an and Sunnah". We are not graced with new divine clarification.
Remember that the Sunnah is not the hadith. Hadith are a shattered
reflection of the Sunnah, and we dare not rest on the efforts of earlier
scholars.
That is MY understanding of Islam. And I am ALIVE with it.
Maslaam
G. Waleed Kavalec
-------------
Our Lord! Forgive us our sins as well as those of our brethren who proceeded
us in faith and let not our hearts entertain any unworthy thoughts or
feelings against [any of] those who have believed. Our Lord! You are indeed
full of kindness and Most Merciful
-- al-Hashr 59:10
G. Waleed Kavalec
news:20030618182140.282$t...@newsreader.com...
> Salam:
>
> "G. Waleed Kavalec" <G.Wa...@kavalec.com> wrote:
>
> > We claim that his teachings and practices have been misrepresented,
> > either through human fallibility or as a result of deliberate
> > machinations of Shaitan
>
> What is the basis of this claim? Could you please explain.
Walaikum asalaam
Yes I can.
I have.
Repeatedly.
Is this a tactic?
Our Creator sets the limit of punishment for zina to 100 lashes. He does NOT
discriminate between married or unmarried.
Those who claim the Sunnah of the Prophet is stoning to death for zina,
based on the few hadith that remain after inapplicable ones have been
eliminated from consideration, still fail to explain...
How a married slave can be stoned half to death.
How a wife of the Prophet could be stoned twice to death.
Why Allah sets the marriage limits for those who supposedly have already
been stoned to death.
Why Allah tells us that those who can be legally killed are only the
murderer or the one who spreads corruption in the land.
Can I explain why scholars of the Sunnah continue to support this notion
that our Prophet would nay-say the words of our Rabb?
No I certainly can NOT explain.
I just know it happened centuries ago, and every time a scholar speaks out
about it he seems to get shouted down. Are members of our ulema so afraid of
the possibility of past errors?
Perhaps they should fear Allah instead.
Maslaam
G. Waleed Kavalec
vmi...@yahoo.com
> Yet, the Sunnah has been passed down to us through scholars and
> jurists! There are many practices of Islam, including those that we
> are obligated to perform every day, which we did not receive from the
> Prophet directly. Rather, we received them through scholars and
> jurists of the past and then through our parents.
Let us look at it this way. The earliest imams of hadith sifted through
and authenticated the existing reports of hadith that were too numerous.
They neither invented the contents of hadith (i.e, the sayings/teachings
of the prophet(SAW), nor determined the cahins of narration.
So, in what sense, are we following the scholars. We are only benefitting
from their work.
It is like saying that we are not following the Qur'an, but Uthman ibn
Affan(RA).
wasSalam
Altway
Altway
G. Waleed Kavalec
news:20030621011252.726$n...@newsreader.com...
> It is like saying that we are not following the Qur'an, but Uthman ibn
> Affan(RA).
Salaam
Those who question the authority of scholars and hadith do so because
our Creator GAVE them no authority.
So you then say they are like those who deny the Revelation?
I would have expected better of you.
Masalaam
G. Waleed Kavalec
MFRahman
> > Yet, the Sunnah has been passed down to us through scholars and
> > jurists! There are many practices of Islam, including those that we
> > are obligated to perform every day, which we did not receive from the
> > Prophet directly. Rather, we received them through scholars and
> > jurists of the past and then through our parents.
>
> Let us look at it this way. The earliest imams of hadith sifted through
> and authenticated the existing reports of hadith that were too numerous.
> They neither invented the contents of hadith (i.e, the sayings/teachings
> of the prophet(SAW), nor determined the cahins of narration.
>
> So, in what sense, are we following the scholars. We are only benefitting
> from their work.
>
> It is like saying that we are not following the Qur'an, but Uthman ibn
> Affan(RA).
>
> wasSalam
>
> Viqar Ahmed
786.
19/6/03.
An open letter to Muslims.
Because we have been negligent in our reading of our Holy Scripture,
despite its being available in English translation for over a century,
we have come to rely on the teachings of others for our hear say
knowledge (2:78) of Islam.
We cannot blame our Scholars for our abdication of responsibility in
this regard. That they have seized the reins of interpretation by
default has placed a great burden upon their heads now intoxicated
with power, fully usurped.
The legacy of Islam received from God is its scripture, the
preservation of which its Author has undertaken, along with its
dissemination and elucidation, having collated it as promised. No
Administrator has been appointed to disburse this legacy. No executor
has been given authority.
The result of our negligence has been a virtual caricaturing of Islam,
since the foundation of our faith has been altered and the rules
premised upon that altered foundation do not lead to salvation but to
heresy.
Perfected Islam has been dismantled and re-engineered into a clone of
precedent deviance and this has been accomplished by the simple
misapplication of one single word "Abrogated".
By claiming falsely that there remain in the Quran several abrogated
verses, our scholars have concluded that while Quran states explicitly
that Jews and Christians are believers, (2 : 62) they are in fact
unbelievers.
That while Quran states explicitly that Christians and Jews are to
follow the Scriptures that are with them, (5 : 46 ; 5 : 49,50.),
those Sacred Scriptures are now corrupted beyond acceptance.
That while Quran states explicitly that we are to believe in the prior
Scriptures, (2:4) we must now reject them as corrupt.
That while Quran states explicitly that life is sacred, (17:33)Muslims
may kill unbelievers and opponents as they please.
That while Quran states explicitly that the adulterer must be flogged
(24:2), instead they must be stoned to death.
That while Quran states explicitly that there is no compulsion in
religion, (2:256) religion must be forcefully imposed.
That while Quran states explicitly that women have equal rights as
those given over them, (2:228) they are in fact deemed to be inferior.
That while Quran states explicitly that only women guilty of lewdness
must be confined, (4:115) all women rightfully ought to be locked up
in their homes.
That while Quran states explicitly that women should dress modestly
and not unduly display their charms, (24:31) in fact only their eyes
should be visible.
That while Quran states explicitly that the food of the Christians and
Jews are permissible for us, (5:6) that is not quite correct.
That while Quran states explicitly that we may marry Christians and
Jews, only men have that questionable privilege. (2:221 ; 2:62 ; 2:228
all refer.)
That while Quran states explicitly that only God's Words should be
studied diligently, (3:79) pre-revelation practices of the Messenger
have been re-established.
These are some of the deviances which have become accepted Muslim
practice globally and which lead to hatred of Islam and what is
virtually a new religion of Muhammadism repugnant as that word is to
all who fondly profess to be Muslims.
The remedy to this malady is for all to read the Quran for guidance
which God has promised through it.
Our Scholars are already outraged that this voice has been raised. But
they are not being blamed as they are equally blind followers of their
teachers and their teachers in turn. They also need to employ their
thinking faculties and revisit the Quran shorn of delusions of their
own knowledge.
The Quran is holistically perfect and there is not a single word which
has been abrogated remaining in it. All abrogated laws and rules have
been replaced and forgotten as it states explicitly. In it is perfect
guidance true and sure, pre-edited and proof-read by The Author
Himself Who has Proclaimed and Assented to its Laws.
MFRahman.
vmi...@yahoo.com
"G. Waleed Kavalec" <G.Wa...@kavalec.com> wrote:
> <vmi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > What is the basis of this claim? Could you please explain.
> Walaikum asalaam
> Yes I can.
> I have.
> Repeatedly.
Certainly, you have repeated certain assertions over and over. Does that
necessarily constitute expalanation?
> Is this a tactic?
No, it is not. Personally, I have only asked for it twice of you. That is
to, at least, provide a basis in established Islamic research for your
assertions. On both occasions, I have gotten no response to this specific
request.
> Our Creator sets the limit of punishment for zina to 100 lashes. He does
> NOT discriminate between married or unmarried.
This is your opinion; or , at most, a minority opinion. Why do you ignore
this important point?
> Those who claim the Sunnah of the Prophet is stoning to death for zina,
> based on the few hadith that remain after inapplicable ones have been
> eliminated from consideration, still fail to explain...
Which few hadith are the *remaining* ones. I have *only* argued upon
the instances of rajm being invoked on muslim offenders, never using
any incident involving jewish cases.
Which of the 2 or 3, or 4 ahadith involving muslims have been eliminated?
And by whom? This, and other such arguments that you have used, prompted me
to ask for established research and references. Now if that is a *tactic*,
then I am speechless.
> How a married slave can be stoned half to death.
I have seen a separate hadith dealing with the punishment for slaves which,
if I remember correctly, prescribes a lashing punishment up to 2 (or 3)
repeated offences. If it persists, the recommendation is to sell off that
slave.
So which *half stoned to death* scenario are we talking about? AFAIK,
stoning is not for slaves.
> How a wife of the Prophet could be stoned twice to death.
I think both for this, and for slave scenario, you are arguing based on
the earlier injunctions in al-Nisa. I believe the injunction in al-Noor
which supersede it, do not speak of half and twice punishments. The only
clarification in that event,is to be sought in prophetic teaching, which
is what I have cited above. And it doesn't involve no half stone. Why
create all these diversions to cloud the issue?
Further, if you put your mind to it, you will realize that both these
scenarios are now moot. There is no justification for slavery in the
modern world, and the prophet's wives (RAA) have all passed away. So, why
are you worrying about twice the punishment for them?
> Why Allah sets the marriage limits for those who supposedly have already
> been stoned to death.
He(SWT) does so for unmarried offenders who have gone thru the lashing
punishment, and would, hopefully, marry in future to avoid a life of
perpetual sin.
What is so complicated and confusing about that?
> Why Allah tells us that those who can be legally killed are only the
> murderer or the one who spreads corruption in the land.
Where does He(SWT) tell us that no one else can be killed under any
other circusmtances?
This is where, I believe, the root of our disagreements lie.
I accept, while you reject, a prophetic teaching as binding on mulsims
where *you think* there is a contradication between the qur'anic, and
the prophetic teaching. But, in reality, there is *no contradiction*,
because the prophetic teachings are supplemental; they do not override
the quranic teachings.
If the qur'an said no one, othere than those guilty of the above offences,
can be killed, and the prophet said that a married adulterer should be
killed then, indeed, there would be a conflict. But this situation does
not exist.
The qur'an itself testifies that the prophet does not speak based on
the temptations of his nafs.
> Can I explain why scholars of the Sunnah continue to support this notion
> that our Prophet would nay-say the words of our Rabb?
>
> No I certainly can NOT explain.
Neither can I. But, then, I do not beleive that the proponents of hadith
make any such claim. So, what is there to explain?
We agree that the prophet cannot, and does not, nay-say the words of
The Creator.
> I just know it happened centuries ago, and every time a scholar speaks
> out about it he seems to get shouted down. Are members of our ulema so
> afraid of the possibility of past errors?
In the case at hand, it seems that it is the majority that is getting
shouted down, not the other way around.
If you do not accept the majority's view, that is fine. You do not have to.
I am not shouting you down.
But you do not have the right to come and ram a minority view down the
majority's throat, which is what you are doing.
It is dishonest when you, repeatedly, project the *minority* view as the
official *Islamic* view. It is not. Why can you not state both the majority
and the minority views,and leave it at that. No one appointed the minority
to be the spokesperson for the majority.
> Perhaps they should fear Allah instead.
Perhaps we should all, don't you think?
> Maslaam
> G. Waleed Kavalec
wasSalam
vmi...@yahoo.com
> Salaam alaikum
wa alaykum asSalam wr wbt
> The problem brother is that MEN declare that "a matter has been dealt
> with via the Qur'an and Sunnah". We are not graced with new divine
> clarification.
Certainly. You and I are also merely human beings. Where exactly does
it lead us to?
Let me raise a related, analogous, issue.
The overwhelming majority of muslims in the finality of prophethood (with
Muhammad(SAW)). The qur'anic verse which deals with this issue uses the
word KHAATAM. while I myself am no Arabic scholar, I understand that this
word has a number of meanings, only one of which has the meaning of
finality.
The Ahmadis and Bahais exploit this to assert that KHAATAM does not mean
final. Clearly, as far as men are concerned, the qur'anic verse is not
definitive.
But we also have prophetic teachings which supplement and clarify the
issue, and which clearly indicate that the prophet himself taught that
there is no prophet him.
Should we use the same argument which you are using here, set aside the
prophetic teaching because, after all, the prophet cannot nay-say The Words
of The Creator, accept that Ahmadis and Bahais have a valid point, and
agree that the Islamic position is that there is NO FINALITY of
prophethood?
If not, then why not?
wasSalam
asimm...@yahoo.com
> > Javed Ghamidi has very clearly and thoroughly demonstrated from the
> > hadeeth that reference the Prophet (S) as passing a judgement of
> > stoning has not given sufficient context to understand the background
> > of each case.
>
> I have read Javed Ghamidi' sarticles in Sept 2002 issue of "Islamic
> Renaissance", and I I am sorry to say that I do not find his argument
> in this matter to be either very clear, or thorough. It seems more like
> an attempt to grab at the ear by putting one's arm around their neck.
>
And I find it quite convincing and very clear and thorough. To me the
traditional argument is more like an attempt to grab at the ear by
putting one's arm around their neck.
But obviously we are speaking about two different methodologies:
1. The traditional one, where everything that is in conformance with
the crystallized version of Islam via 200 to 300 years is accepted as
a CONSENSUS of the Sahabah (R).
2. The clear injunction of the Quran, and interpreting the hadeeth in
light of it.
You may choose the former, I choose the latter.
asimm...@yahoo.com
In my original response, I made a comment about traditional Islam and
interpting hadeeth in light of the Quran. After thinking about it,
it seems to have come off as personal in that I may have left the
impression that your opinion is not from your understanding of the
sources but from tradition.
I apologize for it.
But I do not change the opinion that the punishment of stoning for a
married person is based upn tradition, and there is nothing convincing
that their was a consensus on the matter in early Islam let alone the
Quran.
John Berg
abrogates 124 other verses.
Qur'an 58-12 is said to be the only abrogation without replacement.
John Berg
"Anjum" <anj...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:fdb9c2b0.03061...@posting.google.com...
> thebi...@hotmail.com (thebit) wrote in message
vmi...@yahoo.com
asimm...@yahoo.com wrote:
> But I do not change the opinion that the punishment of stoning for a
> married person is based upn tradition, and there is nothing convincing
> that their was a consensus on the matter in early Islam let alone the
> Quran.
That is fine. I have never asked anyone to change their opinion, neither
am I accountable for it. To you is your opinion, and to me mine.
I have not unduly concerned myself with the issue of early consensus on
this issue. That may be the reason of many others. It isn't mine. In my
view, going with Ghamidi's opinion would invalidate some authentic hadith
reports, and it is easier for me to doubt his judgement, than to believe
that the prophet, or the early companions, were guilty of wrongdoing.
wasSalam
vmi...@yahoo.com
"G. Waleed Kavalec" <G.Wa...@kavalec.com> wrote:
> So you then say they are like those who deny the Revelation?
> I would have expected better of you.
Whew! Now that is a stretch. I have said no such thing.
Let us get this clear. Anjum asserted that Hadith repository is
is a collection by "scholars". So it is. No one is debating it.
But he wants to use this as a supportive argument for the necessity
to follow scholars. Here is where I disagreed. In following hadith,
we are following the prophet(SAW), not the scholars who collected
hadith.
If Anjum's argument is valid, then in following Qur'an we are forced
to follow Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman(RAA), who collected and compiled
it, or the writers of the revelation who wrote it down, rather
than Allah(SWT) Who Gave it The Content. Clearly, such an arument is
untenable.
asimm...@yahoo.com
> word has a number of meanings, only one of which has the meaning of
> finality.
>
Actually, KhaaTAM has the meaning of last and final. KhatIM may be
used metaphorically, and LAST. As for the latter, if it used
metaphorcially their has to be some indication from the usage. Thus,
Arabs may say "He was the LAST OF THE POETS". In such an instance,
the figurative usage is obvious.
The Quran uses the former, and even from a contextual view point,
their isn't the slightest hint of figurative usage,
Altway
> > It is like saying that we are not following the Qur'an, but Uthman ibn
> > Affan(RA).
> Those who question the authority of scholars and hadith do so because
> our Creator GAVE them no authority.
Comment:-
The authority is in the Quran:-
"O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger and those in authority
amongst you; and if ye dispute (quarrel or argue) about anything, refer it
to Allah and the Messenger, if ye (in truth) believe in Allah and the Last
Day; that is better and fairer in the end." 4:59
"But if thou followest most of those who are in the land, they will lead
thee astray from the Way of Allah. They follow naught but opinion
(conjecture or suspicion) and they only guess." 6:117
"He said: Your prayer is answered; be upright then (follow the Straight
Way), ye two, and follow not the path of those who have no knowledge (the
ignorant)." 10:90
"And follow (or pursue) not that of which thou hast no knowledge; verily,
the hearing, the sight, and the heart, of all of these it shall be asked
(to give an account). " 17:36
Certainly we cannot follow our own desires, fixations, fantasies, whims,
self-interest, prejudices, rationalizations
or just any one else.
And it is not guaranteed that scholars are necessrily right,
but they are much more likely to be right than those who make little study
and speculate much less those who are nevertheless vehemently
self-opinionated and wish to impose these opinions on others.
The point of scholarship is to study, discuss, exchange data, ideas, insight
and to think, meditate, pray and to share ones discoveries and insight with
others.
It is not to argue in order to win points.
If others do not want to accept these that is up to them.
But if they have something to add besides making the same dogmatic
statements
then that is welcome.
G. Waleed Kavalec
news:20030623175828.840$s...@newsreader.com...
....
> But he wants to use this as a supportive argument for the necessity
> to follow scholars. Here is where I disagreed. In following hadith,
> we are following the prophet(SAW), not the scholars who collected
> hadith.
Salaam
Unless you are a really, really well preserved 1400+ year
old man, you got your marching orders via an intermediary,
not from Muhammad(saws).
Nowhere in the Qur'an are we told to "Obey Allah and His
Messenger and latter-day collectors of his alleged sayings".
> If Anjum's argument is valid, then in following Qur'an we are forced
> to follow Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman(RAA), who collected and compiled
> it, or the writers of the revelation who wrote it down, rather
> than Allah(SWT) Who Gave it The Content. Clearly, such an arument is
> untenable.
The power of Allah to fulfill His promise is not *untenable*.
It is he who has told us that the Qur'an is a protected book.
It is with us by HIS will, not by the efforts Abu Bakr, Umar,
and Uthman(RAA),
Alalh guides whom He wills, therefore His guidance will reach
whomever He wills; with or with the help of men.
I find the ayat that says the Qur'an is the best hadith.
I am unable to find the ayat that says Bukhari is even better.
>
> wasSalam
Masalaam
G. Waleed Kavalec
Khurram Chaudhry
peace Viqar,
It is not a matter of opinion at all. It is a
matter of logic.
If you accept the ahadith regarding stoning
from the ahadith, then you
would have to accept every ahadith regarding
stoning with the same or
better status as to "validity"
Do you know what that would include?
Regardless of any opinion of anyone, as Islam
is not dependent on
human opinions, the belief in stoning would
also include the belief
that there were verse commanding stoning in the
Quran.
YES!
That is what the ahadith states.
Aisha narrated the following:
"The verse of stoning and of suckling an adult
ten times were
revealed, and they were (written) on a paper
and kept under my bed.
When the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.) expired
and we were preoccupied
with his death, a goat entered and ate away the
paper."
How can a verse of a perfect scripture, which
was completed during
Muhammad's lifetime, be abrogated by a goat?
This story can be found in the following books:
Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal. vol. 6. p. 269; Sunan
Ibn Majah, p. 626; Ibn
Qutbah, Tawil Mukhtalafi 'l-Hadith (Cairo:
Maktaba al-Kulliyat
al-Azhariyya. 1966) p. 310; As-Suyuti, ad-Durru
'l-Manthur, vol. 2. p.
13.
Regard,
Khurram
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
vmi...@yahoo.com
> I understand that this
> > word has a number of meanings, only one of which has the meaning of
> > finality.
> Actually, KhaaTAM has the meaning of last and final.
I am hardly qualified to get into a discussion with you on this; more
so because I am not a stickler for these other meanings. But I have
seen this argument advanced repeatedly by Ahmadis and Baha'is. As for
the context, yes it may be clear from the context what is meant. So is
the Islamic punishment for adultery if you were to put all the information
together, and attempt to rationalize it as a whole.
Why this selective infatuation with context?
asimm...@yahoo.com
> asimm...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > I understand that this
> > > word has a number of meanings, only one of which has the meaning of
> > > finality.
> > Actually, KhaaTAM has the meaning of last and final.
>
> I am hardly qualified to get into a discussion with you on this; more
> so because I am not a stickler for these other meanings. But I have
> seen this argument advanced repeatedly by Ahmadis and Baha'is.
My POINT IS THAT Khatam ONLY MEANS LAST when used for a person and it
is NEVER USED METAPHORICALLY. The word khatim may be used
metaphorically along with last. But it is only used metaphorically
when the language itself points to its usage as a metaphor. Thus
Qadianis may argue that Khatim al shoora means best of poets, and it
is true. But:
1. It is clear that the title is figurative because poets exists and
continue to exists.
2. No Arab ever says KhaTAM al shoora.
As for
> the context, yes it may be clear from the context what is meant. So is
> the Islamic punishment for adultery if you were to put all the information
> together, and attempt to rationalize it as a whole.
>
Where in the Quran does the CONTEXT ever point to anh distinction
between a married and unmarried adulterer? The analogy is totally
baseless. Anybody from reading the ayah concerning the Last Prophet
will very well understand that it is speaking about the MISSION of the
Prophet (S) and his clearing away the baseless customs that existed.
And if he did not, than obviously they would continue to exists.
> Why this selective infatuation with context?
>
There is not selective infatuation. Point to me the context of the
statements on the punishment of zina and tell me how they allude to
ant differences in the punishment,
> Viqar Ahmed
Tomasz Antkowiak
Pardon my intrusion.
asimm...@yahoo.com wrote in message news:<92717884.03070...@posting.google.com>...
> Where in the Quran does the CONTEXT ever point to anh distinction
> between a married and unmarried adulterer? [snipped rest]
This is what I never understood:
Someone who is married -- has an obligations of support, loyalty,
love, and *fidelity* to a spouse -- recieves the same punishment as
someone who is single. Hmm.
take care,
T.A.
asimm...@yahoo.com
Not necessarily. The marriage becomes invalidated for the couple and
that man/woman has lost whatever good that may have come from that
bond. Besides that punishment, he/she also shares the punishment of
an unmarried person, and that is never being able to marry from the
community anyone except who has been caught and punished in the same
act.
In essence, if one studies the Quran very closely, the
adulterer/adulteress becomes really a social outcast. God Almighty
has revealed a code of injunctions which are meant to protect the
honour and hide the shame of individuals, including the requirement of
4 individuals actually witnessing the act.
Tomasz Antkowiak
asimm...@yahoo.com wrote in message news:<92717884.03070...@posting.google.com>...
> Not necessarily. The marriage becomes invalidated for the couple and
> that man/woman has lost whatever good that may have come from that
> bond. Besides that punishment, he/she also shares the punishment of
> an unmarried person, and that is never being able to marry from the
> community anyone except who has been caught and punished in the same
> act.
So essentially there is no distinction between the married and single
when it comes to zinna (illicit sexual intercourse)? For someone who
says every portion of Shariah has rationality, this would be
irrational and unjust, to say the least. Might as well make the
punishment for theft equal for the sane and insane.
Finally, consider the Sahih Hadith presented in Ibn Kathir's
commentary on the punishment for zinna in Surah Nur. The interesting
part, is that the Messenger of Allah -- Peace and blessings be upon
him -- ordered one spouse to be stoned while the other flogged and
sent into exile (please note the hadith exists in *both* sahih
collections):
---StartQuote---
[...]As for the virgin who is unwedded, the prescribed punishment is
one hundred stripes, as stated in this Ayah. In addition to this he is
to be banished from his homeland for one year, as was recorded in the
Two Sahihs from Abu Hurayrah and Zayd bin Khalid Al-Juhani in the
Hadith about the two bedouins who came to the Messenger of Allah . One
of them said, "O Messenger of Allah, this son of mine was employed by
this man, and committed Zina with his wife. I paid a ransom with him
on behalf of my son one hundred sheep and a slave-girl, but when I
asked the people of knowledge, they said that my son should be given
one hundred stripes and banished for a year, and that this man's wife
should be stoned to death.'' The Messenger of Allah said:
(By the One in Whose Hand is my soul, I will judge between you both
according to the Book of Allah. Take back the slave-girl and sheep,
and your son is to be given one hundred stripes and banished for one
year. O Unays -- he said to a man from the tribe of Aslam -- go to
this man's wife, and if she confesses, then stone her to death.) Unays
went to her and she confessed, so he stoned her to death. This
indicates that if the person who is guilty of illegal sex is a virgin
and unmarried, he should be banished in addition to being given one
hundred stripes. But if married, meaning he has had intercourse within
the bounds of lawful marriage, and he is free, adult and of sound
mind, then he should be stoned to death. Imam Malik recorded that
`Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, stood up and praised and
glorified Allah, then he said; "O people! Allah sent Muhammad with the
truth, and revealed to him the Book. One of the things that was
revealed to him was the Ayah of stoning to death, which we have
recited and understood. The Messenger of Allah carried out the
punishment of stoning and after him we did so, but I am afraid that as
time goes by, some will say that they did not find the Ayah of stoning
in the Book of Allah, and they will go astray because they abandoned
one of the obligations revealed by Allah. Stoning is something that is
prescribed in the Book of Allah for the person -- man or woman -- who
commits illegal sex, if he or she is married, if decisive evidence is
produced, or if pregnancy results from that, or if they confess to
it.'' It was also recorded in the Two Sahihs in the lengthy Hadith of
Malik, from which we have quoted briefly only the portion that is
relevant to the current discussion.
---EndQuote---
Taken from: http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=24&tid=35488
Take care,
Tomasz Antkowiak
asimm...@yahoo.com
>
> asimm...@yahoo.com wrote in message news:<92717884.03070...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > Not necessarily. The marriage becomes invalidated for the couple and
> > that man/woman has lost whatever good that may have come from that
> > bond. Besides that punishment, he/she also shares the punishment of
> > an unmarried person, and that is never being able to marry from the
> > community anyone except who has been caught and punished in the same
> > act.
>
> So essentially there is no distinction between the married and single
> when it comes to zinna (illicit sexual intercourse)? For someone who
> says every portion of Shariah has rationality, this would be
> irrational and unjust, to say the least. Might as well make the
> punishment for theft equal for the sane and insane.
>
1. No, there is NO DISTINCTION between the married and unmarried
person when it comes to zina in terms of application of the HUDOOD of
God Almighty, with the exception that:
I already stated that the marriage becomes invalidated for the person
who committed the act. A person who succumbs to the temptation would
lose all the benefits of the bond he had originally entered into.
Thus, how can you argue that the punishment is the same, irrational,
and unjust? This, in itself, is a severe punishment for an act that
takes 30 minutes.
2. This act of infidelity still does not absolve the person from
his/her obligations towards the children.
3. The punishment of zina is NOT SIMPLY 100 lashes. In fact, the
punishment is not done with a whip or any other hard object and it is
meant to HUMILIATE and bring SOCIAL DISFAVOUR on the couple that
committed the act. There are several aspects of the punishment,
WHICH IS all based upon SOCIAL HUMILIATION. Marriage is not only a
means of sexual intercourse, but a SOCIAL CONTRACT. With the
commission of the act, that social contract becomes nullified, and
he/she can never marry from the righteuous among the community again,
only those that have also faced the same punishment. It is not really
an issue of rajm versus lashing.
3. The analogy between and insane and sane person is baseless. No
punishment can be applied to anyone that is insane, because the
obligations of shareeah are for those that possess reason and
understanding. That is why a person, who possesses full reason, and
steals a simple morsel of food does not get his hand cut off.
> Finally, consider the Sahih Hadith presented in Ibn Kathir's
> commentary on the punishment for zinna in Surah Nur. The interesting
> part, is that the Messenger of Allah -- Peace and blessings be upon
> him -- ordered one spouse to be stoned while the other flogged and
> sent into exile (please note the hadith exists in *both* sahih
> collections):
>
1. There are plenty of questions in these narrations and if you want
to prove an issue of death and life, you need to bring proof from the
Quran. There are plenty of places where God Almighty could have made
a distinction between the two, especially when it lays down a whole
series of obligations regarding marriage, and the nullifcation of
marriage, and the stipulations regarding what to do with the mehr when
a marriage becomes nullified.
2. The Quran has only allowed the husband the right to take back the
full mehr, when the wife has committed an open fahishah, i.e.
adultery.
3. These narrations state that exile and lashing was prescribed for
the boy. This is in direct and open violation of the Quran. Exile is
the least form of punishment prescribed in the Quran for one who
SPREADS FASAAD AND DISORDER in the land, not zina. Further, it is
tantamount to saying that the Prophet (S) punished the slave in EXCESS
of the command of Allah Almighty. If anything, the hadeeth has not
been rendered in totality and has to be re-examined.
4. The last hadeeth is absurd and contradicts even other hadeeth. It
is claimed that pregnancy is a proof of zina. There is another
narration of a woman brought forth and accused of infidelity and when
she was told that on the fourth denial, if she lied, she would face
the curse of God Almighty, she hesitated. She still denied it on the
idea that she would face humiliation from her tribe. After she had
given birth, it was clear the baby was not her husbands. The Prophet
(S) is reported to have gotten angry and said that if he (S) could, he
would enforce the punishment, but he (S) did not.
5. There is NO EVIDENCE from the Quran that banishment is a
punishment for zina along with the lashes.
6. How can one argue that stoning is in the book of Allah for married
persons? Why would Umar (R) suddenly try and defend a practice that
was recited and known?
The issue, from what I am reading, has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE
PUNISHMENT. It is more a fear on the people that if such a thing is
even questioned, it would make them reconsider the traditional
approach they have been spoon fed with. If they cannot deal with
this, than it is their issue. I have not denied that there were
certain situations that rajm was applied, nor have I denied that the
state can impose such a punishment. BUT the NATURE OF THE CASE WOULD
HAVE TO FALL UNDER the punishment outlined in Surah Maidah, and that
is for the courts to decide.