basilico:


So why is the thread here and not. at your section where we are banned?
The OP found a taqqiya site lying about stoning and triumphantly posted it.
A Sahih Hadith was then revealed by Truthman showing the prophet stoning and praying over that woman's body.

truthman2012:


Islam is confusion and it is deliberately so by allahh. Quran stipulates flogging for adulterers and Muhammad went killing, a clear violation of allahh command, yet you cannot see anything wrong with that. Allah himself looked away from his prophet's usurping his power. Deception.

Where did you find death penalty for adulterers in Torah?

Have any of you seen Torah before?

Where did you read about Jesus not abrogating the old laws, do you believe what Jesus said in the bible?

Abuamam:

I would ask you the same... but I already know what your final destination would be; if you remain where you are today.

Believe me, I am very happy with my life. My submission to my Lord is not just a duty; it is a pleasure. I have tried your way. It is horrible.

Blackfire:

Let me stop here... Masalam

Demmzy15:

Please clear your eyes and re-read this thread, Stoning to death might have been carried out for various reasons before the revelation of Suratul Nur, but our point is that the final punishment is flogging. The Prophet might have adopted the punishment of the Jews before Allah revealed flogging to him!

truthman2012:


When did Muhammad begin to apply Jewish law? Did he believe in the Jews?

Abuamam:


The only wise statement in your whole write-up.

Go in peace.

Demmzy15:

What does the 'law of moses' say about adultery? Or you think Muslims don't know that moses was sent to the children of Israel with a law?

truthman2012:


Is Moses law applicable to the muslims? Why did you say Muhammad used it?

Abuamam:




Umar ibn al Khattab was not the only companion who spoke about an abrogated verse (s) in the Quran. The only objection you feel you have is that it degenerates the status of the Quran. I do not know why that is. The make-up of the Quran was fluid until the death of the prophet (saw). It was the prophet (saw) himself who prevented Umar (ra) from writing down the verse of the rajm. New verses were revealed and others were abrogated through the prophet's lifetime.

Abuamam:

Untrue. The abrogation of verse 2:180, granting a bequest to an existing heir, was abrogated by a hadith.

Abuamam:

In any case, the hadith on rajm does not abrogate the Quranic verse in surat al Nur. It SPECIFIES it. This is called takhsees. Again there are many examples of such hadith of takhsees.

Abuamam:

This is the methodology of the Rafidhis (the modern branch of Shi'a), which they use to create doubt about hadith authenticity.



I know some of the scholars that hold these opinions. Some are even pushing the Shi'a agenda by posing as Sunnis. I will not mention their names either, but their voices are loud on the internet.

AlBaqir:
@Empiree, I believe you know whatever the punishment of Adultery is, Qur'an approve "repentance" of the criminal over the punishment.
Allah says:
...And if they repent (promise Allah that they will never repeat, i.e. commit illegal sexual intercourse and other similar sins) and do righteous good deeds, leave them alone. Surely, Allah is Ever the One Who accepts repentance, (and He is) Most Merciful.

Punishment is only mandated on the deviant.

truthman2012:


Is Moses law applicable to the muslims? Why did you say Muhammad used it?

AlBaqir:
@Empiree, may Allah increase our knowledge and give us the tawfiq to understand this deen more.

1. Rajm (stoning) is a fixed and valid punishment for adultery. There are tens of Sahih ahadith to support that.

Note this is not a matter of "Hadith" abrogating an Ayah; which can NEVER happens. Abuamam slightly disagree with you on this but I will comment at an appropriate place, in sha Allah.

AlBaqir:

2. According to the Qur'an, there are two things sent down to the Prophet (peace be upon him and his household); the Book and the Hikmah.

And remember the Favor of Allah upon you, and that which He has sent down to you of the Book AND the Hikmah, whereby He instructs you. {Qurah 2: 231}

And another ayah says:
And Allah sent down to you (O Muhammad) the Book and the Hikmah {Qur'an 4: 113}

Many claimed the "Hikmah" is the Sunnah of the Prophet. However, it is absolutely more than that.
Interestingly, the "Hikmah" too like the "Book (Quran)" used to be recited. Allah says:
And remember that which is recited in your houses of the Verses of Allah and the Hikmah. Verily, Allah is Subtle, Aware. {Qur'an 33: 34}

My personal opinion based on this noble ayah is that "the punishment of adultery (stoning)" was revealed as part of "the Hikmah" not part of "the Book". The noble reciters and recorders of the Qur'an among the companions understood this perfectly as explained to them by the Prophet himself (peace be upon him and his household). There are numerous example but I will cite one for brevity:

Al-Hafiz Ibn Kathir writes:
Ibn Abbas, Ubayy b. Ka'b, Sa'id b. Jubayr and al-Suddi used to recite: {Those of them with whom you contract mut'ah for a specified period, give them their prescribed dowries}
{Tafsir al-Qur'an al-Azim, vol. 2, p. 259}

Note that the bold part in the ayah {Quran 4: 24} is not part of the Qur'an.

AlBaqir:

So, I am of the firm believe that due to numerous authentic ahadith available on Rajm (stoning), there is no doubt it was "revealed" being part of "al-Hikmah" therefore do not occupy part of "the Book (Qur'an)".

NB: This is where Umar got the "Ayat Rajm (verse of stoning)" wrong when he claimed that it was part of the Qur'an revealed to the Prophet. There are numerous wrong judgment made by him contrary to Quran and Sunnah.

AlBaqir:

3. Why Is Sharia Law seem Violent?!
The wisdom behind Islamic criminal laws is more of prevention and protection of community’s security rather than executing a punishment. Thus,although Islamic retributions sound violent, in practice Islam has set forth rigorous requirements to prove a crime.

For example, theoretically the punishment of adultery is is stoning, however, to prove the crime either four just male eye witnesses must be present together before the judge to testify that they witnessed the actual fornication and their testimony is exactly the same – if only three just male eye witnesses appear before the court and offer their testimony they will be held liable to punishment-, another way to prove a crime is if the suspect appears before the court on four different occasions and willingly confesses the crime. Even if one of the parties involved confesses the crime the
law will be executed only on him/her.

Punishment for theft is another example.
Theoretically its punishment is amputation of the right four fingers – administered under anesthetics.

However, the law will not be executed unless about 15 conditions are met. For example, the law will not be executed during a famine if the stolen item is a
necessity of life, or if the thief repent before the case is brought before a judge, the case will be dismissed, etc.

Allah knows best.

AlBaqir:

@underline, that is very disappointing. How on earth will the holy Prophet (peace be upon him and his household) prevent an ayah to be written down?! Besides, Umar was not known to ever be among "reciters, recorders and interpreters of the Qur'an".

AlBaqir:

Now to the matter of issue of "nasikh" and mansukh".

1. The Abrogating (nasikh) and The Abrogated (mansukh) verses
Abrogating verses are those which are applicable and relevant at all times and abrogated verses are not relevant and have already been fulfilled.
{The speaking Qur'an and the Silent Qur'an, p. 189}

2. Only A (new) Ayah Can Abrogate Another (Existing) Ayah

Allah says in His noble Book:
Whatever a verse We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or one similar to it. {Qur'an 2: 106}

Also,
And when We change a verse in place of another verse, and Allah knows best of what He sends down, they say, "You are but a forger." Nay, but most of them know not. {Qur'an 16: 101}

Imam al-Shafi'i (d. 204H) says:
The Book of Allah cannot be abrogated except by His Book, due to the statement of Allah {Whatever a verse We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better or one similar to it} and His statement {And when We change a verse in place of another verse...}. So, it is very clear that the abrogation of (a verse of) the Qur'an cannot occur except through (another verse of) the Qur'an.
{Muhammad b. Idris al-Shafi'i, Kitab Ikhtilaf al-Hadith, pp. 483 - 484}

Imam 'Abd al-Razzaq (d. 211H) has this too:

'Abd al-Razzaq --- Ma'mar --- Qatadah:

As for His statement {We bring a better one or one similar to it}, He says: "A verse in which there is relief, in which there is permission, in which there is a command, in which there is a prohibition."
{Abd al-Razzaq b. Hamam al-Sana'ani, Tafsir al-Qur'an, vol. 1 p. 55}

Prof. Ibn Yasin says about this riwayah:
Its chain is sahih
{Prof. Dr. Hikmat b. Bashir b. Yasin, Mawsu'at al-Sahih al-Masbur min al-Tafsir bi al-Mathur (Madinah: Dar al-Mathar, 1st edition, 1420H), vol. 1, p. 213}



Kindly read and research more about ayah that abrogated the above.



Exactly.

AlBaqir:

Really you are simply obsessed with the Shi'a. I only cited two out of "many" areas where you keep on referring to Shi'a on this thread. You can avoid all these propaganda and insults, and focus on the issues at hand. Often times you have been challenged, and ample evidences given to you to dispel the myth and propaganda you love to spread about Shi'a yet you go "Wahabi-style". That's neither Islamic nor academic.

Don't let us derail this thread please.

Abuamam:


The only wise statement in your whole write-up.

Go in peace.

Empiree:
I Understood this part. I went straight to the bottom line. Pardoning is always available.

Demmzy15:

Na'am, Hikmah which could be translated as wisdom is talked about here.

Demmzy15:

And your speculations about 'Hikmah' being read is extremely weak. There is no tangible proofs from the Sunnah that 'Wisdom' revealed was once read like the Quran!

Demmzy15:

In fact the hadiths of Umar talking about Stoning, which is not one but many actually contradict each other. Example:-

[It is reported by] Ibn Abi Shaybah, concerning al-masahif, from al-Layth bin Sa‘d who said: The first to collect the Qur`an was Abu Bakr and Zayd bin Thabit wrote it. And people came to Zayd bin Thabit (with the portions of the Qur`an) but Zayd did not write anything (in the Qur`an) except with the testimony of two reliable witnesses. The last part of Surah Bara`ah was not found except with Khuzaymah bin Thabit. He said, “Write it, for the Messenger of God had declared the testimony of Khuzaymah equivalent to that of two men.” So he wrote it. And ‘Umar came with the verse of stoning but Zayd would not write it because ‘Umar was alone (in his testimony) (Al-Suyuti as quoted in ‘Awn al-Ma‘bud 3130)

According to this story, in the time of Abu Bakr when the Qur`an was reportedly collected no one knew about the stoning verse or no one remembered it except ‘Umar, even Abubakr who was the right-hand man of Rasulullah!

Demmzy15:

Here is another speech of 'Umar' found in Sirat e Nabiyy by Ibn Ishaq and abridged by Ibn Hishaam. Ibn Ishaq knew Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri who was a Tabi'een that narrated many hadiths(Imam Layth warned Imam Malik against this man):-

"God sent Muhammad with the truth and sent down the Book to him. Part of what God sent down was the verse of al-rajm; we recited it, we were taught it, and we memorized it. God’s Messenger did carry out stoning and so did we after him. I am afraid that with the passage of time people will say that they find no mention of al-rajm in God's Book and thus they will go astray by leaving an obligation sent down by God. Surely, al-rajm in the Book of God is laid on married men and women who commit zina` if there is direct evidence (of witnesses) or conception or confession. We also used to recite as part of the recitation of God's book: ‘Do not desire to have anscestors other than your own as it is kufr (disbelief or unthankfulness) to do so.’ Beware! The Messenger of God did say, ‘Do not praise me excessively as Jesus, son of Marry was praised, so call me God's slave and his messenger.’
The speech then continues with the political issues that motivated it in the first place (Ibn Ishaq as quoted in Ibn Hisham, p. 898-899).

This narration is very similar to the one found in Sahih Bukhari, what the bolded implies is that, the first hadith said only 'Umar' knew the Stoning verse, but the other said many knew, with the use of the pronoun "We".

Demmzy15:

I don't think Stoning was revealed as 'Hikmah', from the hadiths I presented above. 'Umar' when he supposedly came with the Stoning verse, he was rejected by the scribe because it was unknown. If the scribes and other Sahabas knew about it, they'ld have just presented themselves as witnesses, but that's not the case. The Qur’an mentioned that for both married and unmarried it's flogging and the Sahabas understood.

Demmzy15:

Mashallah, the punishments in the Shariah are to make the society a better place. I'm proud to say that 'Stoning' has no basis, the Prophet was sent as mercy to mankind so we can reform ourselves for the betterment of the society.

Demmzy15:

This is an interesting observation, why would the Prophet prevent something as sensitive as that from being written down? The Quran took care of both cases(married and unmarried), they're no interpolation in the Quran. If an issue as important as this is missing from the Quran, then my friend we as Muslims can't brag that the Quran is complete. When we analyze some issues we have to look at them from all sides, by claiming a verse of Stoning is missing is not a small matter. Allah and his Prophet have made it clear that the Quran is complete and unaltered!

Demmzy15:

As an Ahl Sunnah(Salafi), in which some who out self-delusion or misconceptions term 'Wahabi' have always been against any former of Bid'a which the Prophet and his Sahabas never taught. Many have declared scholars who are totally innocent like Ibn Baz, Al-Albani, Ibn Abdulwahab, Al-Fawzân, et-al apostates and declare 'takfir' on them. This includes fellow Sunnis, majority Shias and Sufis, you just have to deal with it. Many Sunnis hate and disassociate themselves from Shia because of their blasphemous beliefs(not all Shias, some don't know). So don't blame my bro, I hope you're not among the bad Shias.

Empiree:
So I sometimes do not use mainstream view in debate. This is why many brothers here can not squash usermane. The guy is smart. But he can't crush them either. I was silently reading their arguments back and fourth last yr until i jumped in between. He had to give up on me because my method was different. He said it himself that he gave up on me. He studied and truly captured mainstream ideology and used it against them. Sorry for the long-winded post.

Abuamam:
He is a quranist. There is no difficulty in debating a quranist who accepts logical reasoning... using the correct methodology. Same with Shi'as. The reason why you were more seemingly successful is because he was less used to your system; not because you were right, and most deviant sects are trained to debate the orthodox view, while orthodox sunnis mostly do not bother specialising in debate with specific sects.

usermane:
I have chosen not to revisit this topic because from a just, rational and Quranic perspective, it goes beyond saying that stoning adulterers is unjustifiable.

Beg your pardon! A deviant sect whose ideology is fragile and easy to counter is the one you belong. The one which bar non-Muslims from Mecca and Medina and yet endorse 'Jihad'(military aggression) against these non-Muslims outside the 'Islamic state', the one which stone adulterers but yet condones keeping concubines, hinder menstruating women from the path(Salat & Fasting) of God. A deviant sect that slanders the Prophet of pedophilia and war crimes whilst paying whilst false allegiance or respect for him is the one you belong.

See, as long as you keep trading the Qur'an for traditions of men(Hadith Books);

I "ll always be one step, three steps, seven steps ahead of you. And just when you think you are catching up, boom! That 's when i "ll be right behind you. And in no time you ''ll be exactly where i want you to be. So come close, get over me, because the closer you think you are; the less you are actually seeing. I "ll always be the smartest guy in the room.

SALAAM!

usermane:
[size=1pt] I have chosen not to revisit this topic because from a just, rational and Quranic perspective, it goes beyond saying that stoning adulterers is unjustifiable.

One wonders how stoning to death can be halved for married slave women(Qur'an 4 25) or doubled for wives of Muhammad(Qur'an 33:30) if indeed it is the Islamic penalty for adultery.






[/size] Beg your pardon! A deviant sect whose ideology is fragile and easy to counter is the one you belong. [size=1pt] The one which bar non-Muslims from Mecca and Medina and yet endorse 'Jihad'(military aggression) against these non-Muslims outside the 'Islamic state', the one which stone adulterers but yet condones keeping concubines, [/size] (the one which) hinder menstruating women from the path(Salat & Fasting) of God. [size=1pt] A deviant sect that slanders the Prophet of pedophilia and war crimes whilst paying whilst false allegiance or respect for him is the one you belong.

See, as long as you keep trading the Qur'an for traditions of men(Hadith Books);

I "ll always be one step, three steps, seven steps ahead of you. And just when you think you are catching up, boom! That 's when i "ll be right behind you. And in no time you ''ll be exactly where i want you to be. So come close, get over me, because the closer you think you are; the less you are actually seeing. I "ll always be the smartest guy in the room.

SALAAM! [/size]

9jaforlife:


Are menstruating women supposed to perform salat and engage in fasting?? ??

Empiree:
that's what he thought. we had that discussion with him before

Lobatan!!

All these 'Muslims' that think they're smarter than God, and they can do better than the Prophet (PBUH)... Na wah o!

Sahih Bukhari
Book of Salat.

Narrated by Anas bin Malik Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah."

Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, "O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?" He replied, "Whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have."

tintingz:
Interesting post by my Muslim brothers.

...and i will hold on Empiree and Demmzy15 view on "stoning adulterer(which cannot be found in the Quran)", the Quran should be the final judge.

Empiree:
His analysis makes sense on early and late marriage (sheik in white).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFI-nkiIy4o

AlBaqir:


What's Sheik Imran Hussein's view on Rajm?

Empiree:
My bad. I said on this thread that i was going to write my research on this subject (Abrogation and Rajam) here this weekend but i changed my mind because it may not sit well with some muslims. As for Sheik imran, he appears to fault the narration as well with dynamic explanation that you can reason with. I think this video better explains his position. It's only 40 minutes. I implore others to watch this too. I haven't watch this though. Please let me know if this is the correct video bcuz I am not too sure as this is titled 'abrogation'


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQHuzRc2lwk&index=11&list=WL

However, my personal opinion that i wanted to voiced before I retreated was that since rajm is not our Law, it belongs to Judeo/Christian and it's still in their Book. Therefore, "Hikma" - wisdom as you argued earlier, should be Ulama should apply "Rajam" on Jews and Christians living in Muslim countries. Especially folks bashing Islam on NL like truthman, truthgod, ifean, basiclino, channls, and others.

It's their Law. And if they claim Jesus abolished it, Ulama (jury) should simply quote their holy Book where Jesus himself is quoted to have said he did not come to abolish the law or the prophet but to fulfill it. That should be their hikm and that's hukmAllah ta'la on them.

I do not deny the incidents reported in the ahadith regarding ordering stoning to death of adulterers. My concern is the hadith does not say if the events(stoning) took place before or after verse of the Quran i:e flogging was revealed. It appers that Rosullah applied old law because Tawrat was still in effect including qibla (Jerusalem)

I swear lots of christian will deny their faith and prefer islam sharp sharp. Thats another form of Dawah. I was going to respond to your post to demmz15 but I decided to ignore. Anyways, i think this video and little note here should respond to that.