TheMostReadBook.org

An English translation of the Quran that is as close as possible to the Arabic sacred text
View active topics
  Verse(s):    
View unanswered posts





Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 17 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Did the Sunna abrogate 24:2?
PostPosted: 26 Sep 2010, 20:47 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
In his book الرأي الصواب في منسوخ الكتاب, Jawaad Moosa Affaana rejects the stoning ruling and argues that it was abrogated by 24:2. Here is a summary of some of his arguments,

  • Chapter 24 was revealed after the stoning rulings. He quotes the authentic hadeeth mentioned earlier in this topic where Abdullah ibn Awfa was asked if the Prophet (PBUH) stoned. He answered that he did but he wasn't sure if that was before or after Chapter 24 was revealed. He said that this Chapter was revealed right after the Ifk incident, which he said was around year 9 A.H.

    His debater, Abdul-Baasit Al-Ghareeb, argues that stonings happened after Chapter 24 was revealed, because the Ifk incident took place around year 4-6 A.H, while stoning was witnessed by Abu-Hurayra who only became Muslim at year 7 A.H., and by Ibn Abbaas, who came to Medina with his mother on year 9 A.H.

  • Imaam Maalik (ibn Anas) had three chapters in his book الموطأ concerning penalties. In the chapter about adultery, he did not mention stoning. I verified that. Al-Ghareeb rebutted that this is a maneuver because the same book mentions stoning in another chapter. I checked that too and it's true. The chapter about stoning does mention several hadeeths where stoning was ordered by the prophet (PBUH) for adultery. It remains a mystery, however, why a chapter named "All that was reported about adultery" did not mention one hadeeth about stoning!

  • All narration chains of narrations about stoning for adultery go through only one person, Az-Zuhri. He argues that a serious ruling as the capital punishment cannot be relegated to a narration made by one man. Al-Ghareeb sees no problem with that!

    I'd add that Dr. Mustafa Zayd, in his landmark book النسخ في القرآن الكريم, volume 1, pages 285-287, item no. 405, dismisses all narrations attributed to Az-Zuhri. Not because there was anything wrong with the man, rahimahullah, but because narrations attributed to him were all narrated by Al-Waleed ibn Muhammad Al-Muwaqqiri, a man whom critics have agreed was a liar! He fabricated narrations and attributed them to Az-Zuhri, which Az-Zuhri never said. And if that wasn't enough, he claimed disconnected narrations connected. That is, a chain of narrators that was missing a narrator, he filled the vacancy, just like that!

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did the Sunna abrogate 24:2?
PostPosted: 06 Oct 2010, 16:31 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Haani Taahir adds a couple of arguments, in his book تنزيه آي القرآن عن النسخ والنقصان, pages 43-46, refuting the alleged stoning verse:

  • There are four chains of narration that narrated the narrations about the stoning "verse",

    1. The first one ends with Ubayy ibn Ka`b: It involves Hammaad ibn Salama and `Aasim ibn Bahdala. Both rated weak for their poor memory.
    2. The second one ends with Abu-Umaama ibn Sahl from his aunt: It involves Marwaan ibn Uthmaan, rated weak.
    3. The third ends with Katheer ibn Aş-Şalt from `Amr ibn Al-`Aas and Zayd ibn Thaabit: Katheer is an unknown! Al-`Ujali and Ibn Hubbaan have rated him trustworthy, but they have done that a lot for unknown narrators.
    4. Sa`eed ibn Al-Musayyib from Umar ibn Al-Khattaab: Sa`eed never heard from Umar, so the narration is disconnected.

  • One other narration, reported by Ibn Maajah and An-Nasaa'i, narrated by Umar, implies that the verse in question was not a Quranic verse. Even that narration has a big problem: one of its narrators is Az-Zuhri, whom Yahya ibn Sa`eed and Azh-Zhahabi said used to impose (يدلس) and leave out the name of the Sahaabi (يرسل).

    An-Nahhaas, in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ, page 15, commented on the narration by Umar that it does not necessarily mean that the verse is Quranic. When one says "We used to read x", he does not necessarily mean x was in the Quran.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Who said what
PostPosted: 25 Oct 2010, 01:54 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
For:
Umar ibn Al-Khattaab (in one report),
Abu-Sa`eed Al-Khudri (implied by his narration of a stoning),
Qataada,
Abu-Haneefa, Abu-Yoosuf, Maalik,
Ash-Shaafi`i (earlier opinion),
An-Nawawi (implied),
Al-Bukhaari, Muslim, Abu-Daawood, Ibn Hanbal, At-Tirmizhi, An-Nasaa'i, At-Tabaraani, Ad-Daarqutni (implied by their reporting of versions of a stoning narration),
Ibn Abi-Shayba, Ibn Hajar, Az-Zayla`i (implied by their rulings),
Dr. Yoosuf Al-Qaradhaawi (he implied stoning is discretionary).

Against:
Umar ibn Al-Khattaab (in another report),
Ali (implied by his rulings),
Ash-Shaafi`i (later opinion, implied),
Badr-ud-Deen Az-Zarkashi (implied),
Abdullah ibn As-Siddeeq Al-Ghamaari (implied, according to Dr. Ali Jum`a),
Muhammad Abu-Zahra, Ali Al-Khafeef, Mustafa Az-Zarqa, Abdul-Wahhab Khallaf (according to Dr. As-Saqqa),
Dr. Ahmad Hijaazi As-Saqqa,
Jawaad Moosa Affaana,
Dr. Ali Jum`a,
Jamaal `Ataaya,
Ihaab Abduh,
Haani Taahir,
Dr. Mustafa Mahmood.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did the Sunna abrogate 24:2?
PostPosted: 06 Jan 2011, 23:22 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Near the end of his book, استحالة وجود النسخ بالقرآن, pages 485-490, Ihaab Abduh tells a very interesting event that took place at an Islamic law seminar held in Al-Baydhaa', Libya, in 1972. Sheikh Muhammad Abu-Zahra, the foremost jurist at the time, stood up and said to the audience, all of whom held him in the highest regard, and announced, "I kept a juristic opinion a secret for twenty years! I want to divulge it now before I meet God and He asks me: Why did you conceal the knowledge you had and did not explain it to people?"

How is that for drama?

He explained it. He has concluded that stoning of an adulterer is "a Jewish custom", which the Prophet (PBUH) approved at first, then it was abrogated by 24:2. In other words, he opined for the reverse of the claim under discussion here.

He gave his reasons:
  1. Verse 4:25 states a situation where the punishment for adultery is half. Stoning cannot be halved! Thus, we must conclude that the torment spoken of in 4:25 is the torment 24:2 mentions in its epilogue, i.e., 100 floggings. That can be halved.
  2. The hadeeth of Abdullah ibn Awfa, reported by Al-Bukhaari where Ibn Awfa was not sure if Chapter 24 was revealed before or after the stoning ruling.
  3. The hadeeth that implies that there was a stoning verse but it was abrogated in recitation but not in ruling, cannot be logically accepted. Especially the narration that says a goat ate it!

As soon as he finished, most of the audience booed him and some stood up and left the hall! Some quoted him from jurists books, but he did not change his mind.

Dr. Yoosuf Al-Qaradhaawi met him after the lecture and said to him, "Your honor, I have an opinion close to yours but may be more acceptable." He asked him what it was. He replied, "The hadeeth of the way out. The Hanafi jurists have opined that flogging is the penalty, while the year exile is an extra punishment left to the discretion of the judge. Likewise may be the penalty of stoning! This way, we can reconcile the narrations which establish stoning during the life of the Prophet (PBUH), Umar's and Ali's."

Abu-Zahra replied, "Yoosuf, is it conceivable that Muhammad ibn Abdillah, the Prophet of gifted mercy, would stone people to death?"

A side point Ihaab tells in this event is the difference between scholars about the definition of المحصن. The majority defined it as a man who was married at one time in his life, even if at the time of his adultery he was divorced or windowed! Sheikh Az-Zarqa disagreed and opined like Imaam Rasheed Ridha did; namely, that المحصن is a man who is married at the time of his adultery. My comment is: How can a matter that results in capital punishment be so uncertain? Don't these people know that their guesses may lead to the death of a human being?

Al-Qaradhaawi comments on the event asking, "How many other scholars have kept their logical conclusions a secret, for fear of what their peers may think?! How many of them died before they told us what they really thought and why?"

Ihaab comments that the religion is not what scholars make of it and that narrations are not holy. They are all single narrations whose authenticity is in question, and even if they are authentic, they have been abrogated by the Quran, not the other way around.

Ihaab concludes that none of the following is part of Islam:
  • Preemptive war.
  • Killing or enslaving a prisoner of war.
  • Discrimination against women. They can be judges and rulers.
  • Stoning of adulterers.
  • Killing the thief after the fifth time he steels.
  • Killing the drunkard after the fourth time he is caught drunk.
  • Killing of magicians.
  • Killing of one who does not pray.
  • Killing of apostates.
  • Harassing non-Muslims in the road, or not initiating greeting to them.
  • Verses of the Quran were abrogated in recitation or ruling or both.
  • That God will come on the Day of Judgment in a form that is different from His true form!
  • A goat ate a page of the Quran and its verses are lost, or that people who memorized verses and were killed in battle, the verses they memorized are thus lost.

I couldn't agree more with him.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did the Sunna abrogate 24:2?
PostPosted: 19 Aug 2012, 18:20 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
This article argues that hadeeths of stoning adulterers cannot be authentic,

https://www.facebook.com/notes/islamawakened/stoning-or-lashing/357740527629527

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did the Sunna abrogate 24:2?
PostPosted: 14 Aug 2013, 04:11 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Al-Qaradhaawi comments on the event asking, "How many other scholars have kept their logical conclusions a secret, for fear of what their peers may think?! How many of them died before they told us what they really thought and why?"

Can this quote be authenticated? It is an authoritative statement about what we alluded to; that extreme peer pressure, ruler pressure, and fear of losing popular reverence, may have prevented dissenting opinions in touchy issues from being voiced.

Kudos to Abu-Zahra.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did the Sunna abrogate 24:2?
PostPosted: 23 Jul 2014, 13:45 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Not so, says many scholars. They actually coined a new phrase الزاني المحصن to refer to an adulterer. They mean by it a married fornicator.

That distinction was not necessary in fact, because God mentions it already,

which clearly sets two different penalties for two different categories of women who commit adultery: (1) Free women, married or single - that's what المحصنات means, and (2) bond-maids whose masters freed them then married them. The penalty for the latter, if she commits adultery, is half that of the former. As mentioned before, stoning cannot be halved, but a hundred lashes can.

God also mentions a third category,

Which sets the penalty to double! The wives of the Prophet (PBUH), were of course paragons of virtue. Verse 33:30 was never applicable, yet God put it in the Quran. Why? Because God would not leave out of His Book any important detail. Consider,

Therefore, anyone who says that God left out a ruling of capital punishment for a crime He did not even mention, is accusing God of gross negligence and accusing the Quran of being incomplete.

Why do I say that the word المحصنات covers unmarried free women too? Because of this verse,

It states that such women are lawful to marry. They wouldn't be if they are already married!

And we know that the word المحصنات also means married women, per, for instance,

which names these women as forbidden to marry. If what is meant by the word is only unmarried free women, then why would they be forbidden to marry?

The word المحصنات means protected women. This protection is either by the fact she is married - her husband protects her, or the fact that she is free - the men of her family and tribe protect her. Bond maids, sadly, were not protected in 7th Century Arabia.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 17 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
It is currently 28 Mar 2024, 09:04

All times are UTC

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group