Refuting an argument for stoning to death for adultery. Taking my evidence from the Holy Qur’an.

Say: “Shall I seek for judge other than Allah? – when He it is Who has 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. (Holy Qur’an 6:114)

 

I would like to turn the readers attention to a particular link here: http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/2012/07/opposition-rajm-analysis-refutation.html

I put this link to show the apologetic lengths that sectarian Muslims will go to in order to justify putting their tradition over the edicts of the Holy Qur’an.

 

For those who have not seen my entry on the subject I would refer you here: https://primaquran.wordpress.com/2012/09/26/is-stoning-to-death-the-punishment-for-adultery-according-to-the-holy-quran/?

This will help give you a better perspective when approaching the subject.

Once you have read the entry at ‘letmeturnthetables’ you will have also have a view of  Para -Qur’an (those who put sources along side/or above the Holy Qur’an).

Let’s look at the first points raised by  Gabriel Keresztes and Waqar Akbar

“Firstly, it is not really true that Qur’an has nothing about stoning though it is true that Qur’an does not explicitly mention it. A reference to Rajm is however found in Surah al-Ma’idah, verse 43 wherein Allah says;

وَكَيْفَ يُحَكِّمُونَكَ وَعِنْدَهُمُ التَّوْرَاةُ فِيهَا حُكْمُ اللَّهِ ثُمَّ يَتَوَلَّوْنَ مِنْ بَعْدِ ذَلِكَ وَمَا أُولَئِكَ بِالْمُؤْمِنِينَ

How do they ask you to judge while the Torah is with them, having the ruling of Allah? Still, they turn away, after all that. They are not believers.” (Holy Qur’an 5:43)

:”The verse was revealed when a couple from amongst the Jews committed adultery. They came to the Holy Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- asking him to judge on the matter. Actually their holy book, Torah, asked for stoning of such offenders, they came to the Blessed Prophet hoping that he would give a lesser punishment.”

 

My comments:

I do not dispute this point.  I am very thankful that they spoke truthfully when they said, :”it is true that the Qur’an does not explicitly mention it”

Yet, is it not curious that one does not reflect upon the scorn that Allah directs at the people of the Torah for not following the ‘ruling of Allah’?

Allah even says that the ruling is ‘with them’.

Allah furthermore says that after they turn away from the ‘ruling of Allah’ that is ‘with them ‘they are not believers’

So in fact this verse is in favour of those who support Prima Qur’an.  In the verse quoted is a message to all of those who will turn away from Allah’s rulings.

Here is something else that they quote:

“It is for this reason that Ibn Abbas- may Allah be pleased with him- said: “He who disbelieves in stoning (the adulterer to death) will have inadvertently disbelieved in the Qur’an, for Allah said, ‘O People of the Scripture! Now has come to you Our Messenger explaining to you much of that which you used to hide from the Scripture’ (Qur’an 5:15), and stoning was among the things that they used to hide.”

 

My comments:

When it says, ‘He who disbelieves in stoning’  you will not fail to note that they include in brackets (the adulterer to death).  This statement does not indicate if those addressed are followers of the Holy Qur’an or the Torah.  ‘He who disbelieves’.   Also it is very misleading the way the authors present this quote.   The quote itself says  has a passage from the Holy Qur’an which states:

O People of the Scripture! Now has come to you Our Messenger explaining to you much of that which you used to hide from the Scripture’.  (Holy Qur’an 5:15)

Again nothing disagreeable here.  Stoning to death is what we find in the Torah, it is not what we find in the Holy Qur’an.

Now let us look at how the two authors try and refute Allah’s law.

Gabriel Keresztes and Waqar Akbar say:

“Another argument is about the general import of the hundred lashes punishment given in surah al-Nur verse 2. They say rajm is, therefore, a contradiction to the Qur’anic instruction.”

“This argument is flawed for a number of reasons;

i) The verse with hundred lashes punishment cannot be general and Qur’an itself testifies to it. In Qur’an 4:25 the punishment of female adulterer is specified to be half of free female fornicator. With this fact known the idea of the totally generic implication of surah al-Nur ayah 2 is laid to proven wrong. Strictly considering the word “zani” used in Surah al-Nur verse 2, it does not differentiate between a slave and a free like it does not distinguish between a married one and otherwise. So to say that it is absolutely universal in application contradicts Qur’an itself.

ii) The context of the hundred lashes verse itself proves it is for fornicators (un-married people) and not adulterers (married people). While the opponents of Rajm are convinced that this verse proves their stance in the light of logic and reason they fail to look at verse number three.  How could it be that if the people refereed to in this verse included both married and unmarried the following verse said that the fornicator male does not marry except a fornicator woman or polytheist and that none marries the fornicator woman except a fornicator or a polytheist?  In the case of a man one could say that he can marry more than once, but in the case of the woman it does not make sense, as she can only marry one husband which shows that verse number two talks about unmarried people. ”

Comments:   It is obvious that the co-authors of the entry have made a number of logical and inconsistent statements.

Remember the following three key statements:

Statement 1)

the punishment of female adulterer is specified to be half of free female fornicator

Statement 2)

Strictly considering the word ‘zani’ does not distinguish between a married one and otherwise” and

Statement 3)

How could it be that if the people refereed to in this verse included both married and unmarried the following verse said that the fornicator male does not marry except a fornicator woman or polytheist and that none marries the fornicator woman woman except a fornicator o a polytheist.”

Lets look at the three statements.

Let us start with statement 2.

Strictly considering the word ‘zani’ does not distinguish between a married one and otherwise

My comments: 

It should be pointed out that the co-authors of the article agreed that the word ‘zani’ does not distinguish between a married one and otherwise.

Thus, (Holy Qur’an 24:2) could very well talk about fornication or adultery or both. Al hamdulillah!  They are not arguing against that!

This point is further buttressed by the following oral tradition mentioned in their article:

Narrated Ash-Shaibani: I asked ‘Abdullah bin Abi ‘Aufa about the Rajam (stoning somebody to death for committing illegal sexual intercourse). He replied, “The Prophet carried out the penalty of Rajam,” I asked, “Was that before or after the revelation of Surat-an-Nur?” He replied, “I do not know.”

 

Let us look at statement 3.

How could it be that if the people refereed to in this verse included both married and unmarried the following verse said that the fornicator male does not marry except a fornicator woman or polytheist and that none marries the fornicator woman woman except a fornicator o a polytheist.”

My comments:

Actually even if the man had four wives, verse 3 would still apply to him.   The co-authors would have to make the case that verse 2 (even if the man had 4 wives) that verse 3 would not be applicable to him. Verse 3 should be understood primarily by the context of the Holy Qur’an and not outside speculation.

Women impure are for men impure, and men impure for women impure and women of purity are for men of purity, and men of purity are for women of purity: these are not affected by what people say: for them there is forgiveness, and a provision honorable. (Holy Qur’an 24:26)

In the case of adultery it would be known that this man or woman has brought shame to their household.  In the case of fornication it is mostly done in secret.  That person (man or woman) should not marry a Muslim man or woman whom has guarded their chastity.   That is the right of those who have safeguarded their chastity.

Verse 3 still applies to those who commit adultery.  This is exactly our point. How can someone get married who is going to be stoned to death?

Now let us look at statement 1

the punishment of (slave) female adulterer is specified to be half of free female fornicator

My comments:

This statement is very odd.   I added the word (slave) in brackets above to help them make their point. Otherwise it maybe confusing to people.

You can read further where they say concerning (Holy Qur’an 4:25) where the co-authors of the article say the punishment of the married slave woman is half that of a free woman.

They say:

“Simply put the “muhsanat” half of whose punishment is for the adulterer slave-women are free unmarried women. And their punishment, if it comes to it, is 100 lashes not stoning. And punishment of hundred lashes can easily be halved. Simple common sense issue!”

So the co-authors would have us believe that the system  should look something like this.

Free woman unmarried-100 flogging

Free woman married adultery-stoning to death

Slave woman married adultery–50 flogging

Slave woman unmarried-??? (25 flogging) ?

The Holy Qur’an when meeting out punishment should be very clear and not ambiguous.     The argumentation put forward by  Gabriel Keresztes and Waqar Akbar would also fail to explain the following verse:

“O Consorts of the Prophet! If any of you were guilty of evident unseemly conduct, the Punishment would be doubled to her, and that is easy for Allah.” (Holy Qur’an 33:30)

How do you double stoning to death?  You can double 100 flogging to 200.  I would imagine that we might see some real slick apologetic that will tell us that “The Punishment would be double to her, ‘would mean stoning in this life and hell in the next life‘.   This seems to be an exegetical stretch aimed at saving oral tradition above the Holy Qur’an.

There are really two other points for consideration from the article by the co-authors.

1) the issue of Mutawatir

As I have mentioned before  Mutawatir hadith cannot over ride Mutawatir Qur’an.

The Azraqi sect  has always used Holy Qur’an 4:25  as a proof against the Sunni sect as a reason not to enforce stoning to death.   I wonder if they are included in the Mutawatir consensus of the Sunni sect?  I guess not.

* source:  (Fahmi Huwaydi, Hatta la Takuna Fitna, p. 132)

 

2) Rajm (stoning) abrogated by flogging.

The co-authors had this to say:

“The fact however remains that most if not all of the incidents of rajm practiced by the Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- took place after the revelation of surah al-Nur. Consider the following points;

1- Surah al-Nur was revealed after a false charge was made against Mother of the Believers, Sayyidah Aisha, which happened immediately after Battle (ghazwah) of Bani Mastaliq. [8]

2-Historians differ as to the date of this Battle. According to Ibn Ishaq it was in the year 6 A.H.[9] According to al-Waqidi[10] and Ibn Sa’d[11] it took place in the year 5 A.H. According to one report attributed to Musa bin ‘Uqbah it happened in the year 4 A.H.[12], however, more authentic reports from him also put it in the year 5 A.H.[13]Hafiz Ibn Hajr considering various narrations and facts has said that most preferable opinion is that of 5 A.H.

Therefore we can say, the latest battle took place in the year 6 A.H. though according to the most authentic view it took place in the year 5 A.H. and immediately after it the Surah al-Nur was revealed. Most accounts say it was the month of Sha’ban.

3- There is evidence of rajm carried out by the Holy Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- after year 6 A.H.

The incident of stoning to death of the Jewish adulterers is reported by the blessed companion Abdullah bin al-Harith, and he said, “I was among those who stoned the two.”

My comments:

The co-authors state:

Surah al-Nur was revealed after a false charge was made against Mother of the Believers, Sayyidah Aisha, which happened immediately after Battle (ghazwah) of Bani Mastaliq.”

My response:

Mash’Allah I wish they would reflect on that.  The charge of Aisha (who was a married woman) was a charge of adultery. Surah al-Nur would have been the perfect occasion to mention anything about stoning. However, the verses as we have seen mention nothing about stoning at all!   So they would have to explain why that is.

They also said:

that most if not all of the incidents of rajm practiced by the Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- took place after the revelation of surah al-Nur.”

My response:

Yet, the one incident that is quoted is interestingly enough involving a Jewish adulterer! To prove that the Holy Qur’an did not come to abrogate the practice of the stoning (as was practiced by the Jews) they quote of all cases an incident involving a Jewish woman!

Was that woman a Muslim?

Were they simply acting upon what the Jewish Shari’ah as based upon the Torah?

These are questions that need answers.

So they are uncertain about dates.   To see a good take on the so called ‘history’ I would highly recommend the following:

http://quransmessage.com/articles/karbala%20historicity%20FM3.htm

 

This entry was given so the readers can see what happens when we rely upon extraneous sources at the expense of divine revelation.

People who believe in such remind me of what Allah mentions in the Holy Qur’an.

“But when there came unto them the Truth from Our presence, they said: Why is he not given the like of what was given unto Moses? Did they not disbelieve in that which was given unto Moses of old? They say: Two magics that support each other; and they say: Lo! in both we are disbelievers.Say : Then bring a scripture from the presence of Allah that gives clearer guidance than these two that I may follow it, if you are truthful.And if they answer you not, then know that what they follow is their lusts. And who goes farther astray than he who follows his lust without guidance from Allah. Lo! Allah guides not wrongdoing folk.” (Holy Qur’an 28: 48-50)

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

One response to “Refuting an argument for stoning to death for adultery. Taking my evidence from the Holy Qur’an.

  1. Pingback: What is the punishment for adultery in the Holy Qur’an? | primaquran

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s