Stoning to death is not Islamic

Society Religion & Philosophy
61

Mahiwal in the other thread pointed out that as Hadiths mention both stoning & flogging at the same time; so it must be concluded that even after the revelation of the verse in Quran regarding flogging the adulterer, the practice of 'stoning to death' was carried out.

This will be the case if flogging for committing adultery was only introduced by Quran. But the following Hadiths show that it was practiced before & Jews have swayed down on their punishments.

The Hadiths is found in Sahih Muslim & Sunan Abu Dawud

[quote]
Book 38, Number 4433:
Narrated Al-Bara' ibn Azib:

The people passed by the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) with a Jew who was blackened with charcoal and who was being flogged.

He called them and said: Is this the prescribed punishment for a fornicator?

They said: Yes. He then called on a learned man among them and asked him: I adjure you by Allah Who revealed the Torah to Moses, do you find this prescribed punishment for a fornicator in your divine Book?

He said: By Allah, no. If you had not adjured me about this, I should not have informed you. We find stoning to be prescribed punishment for a fornicator in our Divine Book. But it (fornication) became frequent in our people of rank; so when we seized a person of rank, we left him alone, and when we seized a weak person, we inflicted the prescribed punishment on him. So we said: Come, let us agree on something which may be enforced equally on people of higher and lower rank. **So we agreed to blacken the face of a criminal with charcoal, and flog him, **and we abandoned stoning.

The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) then said: O Allah, I am the first to give life to Thy command which they have killed. So he commanded regarding him (the Jew) and he was stoned to death.

[/quote]

Flogging the adulterer was common among the Jews even before the Quran prescribed it as a law. Thus, arguing that we take flogging the un-married from Quran & Stoning the married from Torah is not true!

62

Asalaam ualikum ahmadjee;

..and who says that the punishment for stoning is taken from the Torah? It is followed because there are enough accounts for it (in the time of the Prophet(PBUH)) to leave no room for doubts.

63

Oh, and btw I think you misread what the Ahadiths says, let me re-quote it for you:

O Allah, I am the first to give life to Thy command which they have killed

Meaning, that they had killed the command of stoning to death, hence the Prophet(PBUH) had re-issued that command. Makes sense?

64

[quote]
Originally posted by Mahiwal:
..and who says that the punishment for stoning is taken from the Torah? It is followed because there are enough accounts for it (in the time of the Prophet(PBUH)) to leave no room for doubts.
[/quote]

If you follow this thread closely you will find that it is claimed that the 'Stoning to death' is from Torah and that's the reason Prophet (saw) prescribed it as a punishment. There is no mention of stoning the fornicator in Quran. And its against the very nature of the Holy prophet (saw) to make a law by himself that is not the commandment of Allah; so the only reason he could have issues such a sentence was in accordance with the older law.

AnHazoor (saw) followed the old Shariah of Hazrat Musa (as), until Allah revealed to him otherwise about any particular commandment through the revelation of Quran.

For this reason AnHazoor (saw) prayed to the Qibla-e-Awal (Jerusalem) following the old scripture, until Allah revealed in Quran about the change of Qibla to Mecca. Now can someone come & claim that as some Hadiths point out Jerusalem as the Qibla, its ok to face towards it and pray? No. Similarly, Muslims circumcise according to the Abrahamic tradition. If Allah had chosen to forbid or change that by a revelation in Quran, by all means all Muslims would have had a different practice today!

Similarly, I have no doubt that in the case of fornicators AnHazoor (saw) followed the Torah & stoned them to death. But there is no proof that he followed it after the clear verse of Quran that mandates the guilty (not just accused), married and unmarried, be flogged.

65

[quote]
Originally posted by Mahiwal:
Meaning, that they had killed the command of stoning to death, hence the Prophet(PBUH) had re-issued that command. Makes sense?
[/quote]

Yes, it makes perfect sense to me! From the looks of it, following the Torah and out of the glory & dedication for the commandment of Allah be fulfilled, AnHazoor (saw) reinstated that punishment. Probably the first case with more to follow, until Allah revealed the new commandment of only flogging the guilty, in Quran!

Also you have to note two things:

  1. The guilty party believe in the Jewish scripture & they should be punished according to their own law not a law they don't believe in.

  2. There is no proof that the incident happened after the revelation of the Surah-Alnur.

[This message has been edited by ahmadjee (edited July 11, 2002).]

66

[quote]
Originally posted by ahmadjee:
Ibrahim, Am I on the ignore list?
[/quote]

Ibrahim says: salaams to all

Ahmadjee, ** If you continue to be dishonest, what else can I do except ignore those that are dishonest in their conduct?** This is a religious forum, you can practice whatever faith you like but dishonesty is one thing I cannot tolerate for long.

[quote]
I was hoping you will address the question I asked about halfing the punishment of stoning death!
[/quote]

Ibrahim says: I assumed brother Different already addressed that question, and asked you a question? But than again you have your ways of avoiding the questions people will ask you, don’t you?

Now read and contemplate

4: 15 If any of your women are ** guilty of lewdness** take the evidence of four (reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify ** confine them to houses until death do claim them** or Allah ordain for them some (other) way.

So there was no flogging or stoning but only confinement for any women for that situation where Ayat 4:25 had been revealed. So when you quote ayat 4:25 to mock what Allah (swt) had ordained later on for a different situation , how odd you are unaware that in that chapter itself Allah (swt) had given what was to be done for that situation.

Your problem is that you guys don’t understand revelation is given for different situations at different times and only the Prophet (pbuh) knows as to why each revelations was given in that form, which was meant specifically to address a particular situation and will not apply in other cases . This is later learned by the companions and they establish sharia based on such knowledge.

I already explained this to you and changez twice, I hope I don’t need to repeat myself for umpteen times.

This is like killing the pagans was approved at one time when there was a state of war between them, but it seizes once that situation is over, there is no need for an abrogating verse but the bigots use such verses to claim Islam teaches Muslims to kill pagans.

Now read and contemplate

4: 26 Allah doth wish to make clear to you ** and to show you the ordinances of those before you; ** and (He doth wish to) turn to you (in Mercy): and Allah is All-Knowing All-Wise.

Thus devinats like you and those who are trying to argue according to their whims and fancies are doing the same with this nonsense about Qur’an having not mentioning stoning and the Prophet (pbuh) approving forbidden punishments, even though He had been shown the ordinances of those before them (meaning the laws of the Torah and earlier laws as practiced in the past !) .

The very title of this thread as written by gandalf is blasphemous since Allah (swt) did approve stoning . I wonder How gandalf will be answering for this in the hereafter, when he himself quotes it was approved at the time of Prophet Musa (as) by Allah (swt) but dares to write it is not Islamic! Which is indeed silly and blasphemous.

Imagine a created being telling his Creator as to what is Islamic and what is not, how silly can one get!

This is like saying Allah (swt) lied and does not know what to enjoin and what to restrict ( nauzubillah) How wicked and low man can get by his own words!

It is a disgrace! but such are the times where people will try to question and question and question the revelations according to their whims and fancies and this cycle had been repeated over and over and over again , which led the previous generations to altering the revealed scriptures in order to please themselves , thus taking the path to hell.

I am not here to argue but to correct errors and I believe by the Grace of Allah (swt) I had already done that.

Allah (swt) knows best

Was salaam
Ibrahim

** you have built castles in the AIR, now put pillars for them! **

67

Asalaam ualikum ahmadjee;
So atleast ahmadjee you've accepted that the Prophet(PBUH) indeed did punish people by stoning them to death.

Progress! :)

Maybe, since you're confused about the dates, someone else can help you out there, but until then it would be helpful if you dig up references which show a few instances where the Prophet(PBUH) indeed prescribed flogging only for adultery, so as to strengthen your case regarding how Quran had over-ridden the previous command.

Jazkallahu Khairun,
Much obliged,
Mahiwal.

68

So, the 'half punishment' is only about confinement, but not about the punishment of adultery?! Very interesting!

What if I quote you some Hadiths where the slaves were actually given the half punishment of flogs?

69

Ibrahim;

Your babbling has proven once again that you do not understand the qur'an.

Bottomline, stoning cannot be found as a punishment in the qur'an.

As such, as much as Ibrahim will defend this practice to protect a few shady hadiths, stoning is a Judeo-Christian practice, which has no roots in Islam.

Whether stoning was carried out or not, it is clear that once the quranic verse on flogging was revealed, stoning CANNOT be performed.

All hadiths that show otherwise must be rejected. And the hadiths pasted by Ibrahim do not show the holy prophet (pbuh) stoning anyone he found committing adultery. It has no time frame, so these so called acts of stoning may have taken place b4 the ayat on flogging was revealed.

Simple as that, unless some people want to make it complicated, using Judaic laws and circumcision as examples.

70

We need to recognize the truth that those who have so far tried to create an Islamic state have been obsessed more with punishments, thought control, and social regimentation (from dress to the length of beards) than with the welfare and intellectual flowering of their people.

They have acted as vengeful enforcers of what they insist is Islam, not as humble servants of the 'most gracious, most merciful' God, for such are His first attributes, repeated twice, in the very first and very short Sura (al Fateha) that has been called the Essence of the Book. A good Muslim is required to recite this Sura repeatedly (at least 20 times a day) in his daily prayers. The enforcers of Islam, thus, lost sight of nothing but the essence.

Time has come for the Muslim communities around the world to undertake that long overdue 'reconstruction of religious thought' to produce a blueprint for a tolerant, democratic and humane society, at peace with itself, with the rest of the world, and with the pristine spirit of Islam. The task of reconstruction should have two basic objectives: first, formulation of a legal structure to bring about harmony between the internal constituents, and with the external entities; second, harmonizing the sectarian elements within Muslim communities. The task, as we shall presently see, is not beyond the realm of ideological feasibility.

First, the legal structure. This task is not as arduous as it may appear to be, for its foundations have already been laid. Most, if not all, of the Muslim states are signatories to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that contains a universally accepted guideline for a legal structure that encourages and ensures the growth of a tolerant and democratic culture. Since practically all the Muslim states are signatories to the Declaration one assumes that there are no insurmountable ideological barriers to harmonizing any of the 30 articles of the Declaration with the requirements of an Islamic state.

There can be some problem about a few severe forms of punishment like stoning to death and amputation of hand, often used to discredit the entire Islamic legal code, but these are controversial matters even among the Islamic jurists. According to one view, the punishment of stoning to death, for example, can be reviewed as it is not mandated by the Holy Quran.

It was, in fact, sanctified by the Torah. Similarly, there is a view, on the authority of the Fourth Caliph, that the requirement of amputation of hand can be met by amputing a finger. There is, thus, good reason to believe that a legal order that is tolerant, democratic, humane, and in harmony with the universally accepted norms, as codified in the Declaration, is quite consistent with the spirit of Islam.

71

Gandalf;

So then, who died and appointed you the man incharge of fatwas? I say this because your statement about Muslim leaders being obsessed with punishments + dress code is completely untrue and shows an absolute ignorance of Islamic History. And it seems that you have not studied ahadiths (their history and compilation) at all. If stoning seems to you to be a wrong punishment, why dont you take it up with local scholars rather than taking it here?!

72

Mahiwal;

I don't know who or what u are. But lest u have forgotten, this is a discussion forum. Discuss and move on.

Now move on.

73

Gandalf; My point is simple, if this is such a serious issue to you, why not take it to an Aalim? One would've thought that you're an old user and would've learnt that discussions here only lead in circles. This is yet another ahadiths vs. Quran thread like all others before this one.

74

folllowing article present very disturbing
picture of women's suffering and is has
nothing to with islam and more to do with
local culture and misinterpretation of islam.

Women and honour

Advertise Here

Najam Sethi's

E d i t o r i a l

n which country are women who have been raped liable to be charged with adultery and stoned to death in punishment?

In which country are women liable to be publicly gangraped on the orders of “democratic” village community organizations like jirgas and panchayats in revenge for alleged crimes committed by male members of their families and clans?

In which country are young girls criminally assaulted by deranged, perverted or powerful individuals as a matter of routine and condemned to live a “shameful” lie in silence?

In which country are women killed to avenge the perceived “honour” of their male relatives, tribes, clans, village elders, and influential families even though they may not have committed any crime?

In which country are women defaced and deformed by frustrated, “acidthrowing” maniacs?

In which country are women burnt alive in “stove explosions” engineered by enraged inlaws, husbands, brothers and fathers?

In which country do judges clutch at medieval notions of dishonour, inequality, piety and even religiosity to punish and demean women?

In which country are state and society predisposed against women?

If the answers are shameful and embarrassing, we should do something about it. If it is hurtful to see the foreign media washing our filthy linen in public, we should put an end to our dirty practices. If we are appalled by such brutality, we should protest vehemently. If we are aghast at such injustice, we should institutionalize punishments for crimes against women. If our laws are misplaced or discriminatory, we should change them.

Women constitute more than half the population of Pakistan. Yet they are more illiterate, downtrodden, oppressed and exploited than any other section of society. This is a blot on our country’s face; a blot that all the nuclear or nationalist “honour” in the world will not efface. The irony is all the greater when it is lost on our leaders. In an interview some time ago with the National Geographic magazine on the subject of women’s oppression in the context of “honour killings”, General Pervez Musharraf was asked by the foreign interviewer why nothing had been done to alleviate the plight of women in Pakistan. Pat came the answer: “We don’t have the money for alleviating poverty and eradicating illiteracy and backwardness”. “But you have the money for nuclear weapons and missiles”, retorted the devious foreigner. “Yes”, said the simple soldier, “we need nuclear weapons and conventional weapons and missiles in order to live honourably”. Should General Musharraf ever get round to watching that anguished documentary, he might look out for the gleam in the interviewer’s eye. It indicts the country and convicts its leader.

Much the same sentiment can and should be expressed regarding some socalled “Islamic” laws that are demonstrably unjust and also give a bad name to Pakistan. We refer, in particular, to the blasphemy law that has been the subject of so much mischief in the name of a great and just religion. Alleged blasphemers are punished by enraged mobs. They rot in prisons or are killed awaiting trial. They are assassinated inside and outside the courts. Judges dare not acquit them. And selfavowed reformers like General Musharraf don’t have the courage of their convictions to revamp such laws. Why, then, are we surprised by the condemnation of the world when a miscarriage of justice concerning some masih or the other is splashed on television screens and some of Pakistan’s murderous laws and cultural practices are displayed in all their gory details?

Pakistan is stretched on a historical rack, an arm and a leg in antiquity and barbarism, an arm and a leg in modernity and civilisation. Old notions of sovereignty, statecraft, politics, power, patronage, despotism, honour, religion and culture vie with modern symbols of globalisation, electoral democracy, constitutionalism, accountability, civil society, gender equality, professionalism, competitiveness and universal literacy. Historic Islamic strictures contradict postcolonial AngloSaxon structures. Unable to find a mutuality of interests between these two streams of thought and behaviour, society is inclined to descend into a feisty confrontation between the two. As the pace of life quickens under the impact of the new world order, large swathes of state and society are uprooted and dispersed. The job of the modern prince is to channel this energy into a productive, stable and assimilated nationhood. But tragically Pakistan has lacked leaders of substance or vision.

[This message has been edited by rvikz (edited July 12, 2002).]

75

Is whatever you follow - falsehood or truth?

Remember - the narrators of the quran when it got compiled were, more or less, the same people who are quoted & authenticated in the sahih hadiths!

As the saying goes - “beauty in the eyes of the beholder”!

But something UGLY can NEVER be a thing of beauty or TRUTH for that matter!

76

[quote]
Originally posted by hafeez123:
Remember - the narrators of the quran when it got compiled were, more or less, the same people who are quoted & authenticated in the sahih hadiths!
[/quote]

Not quite. History tells us that Copies of Qur'an existed way before the cancer of hadith compilations reared it's ugly head.

The precise point to understand is that we do have a manuscript of Qur'an which historians agree can be placed somewhere around early 8th century. Yes.. that's what we can say with certainty.. not who wrote it down first, or who communicated it etc. The rest is all debatable history.

Sunni's will claim the first written copy was in the days of the first caliph. Shias contest it was written by Ali while the Prophet lived.. why else would he refer to leaving the Qur'an behind in his last sermon?

So you see.. such is the unverified nature of these versions of history.. each sect rejoices in their own set of books claiming they have the most 'researched' and 'scientific' compilations when at times all that's required for someone to be 'truthful' is the assumption that they existed in the times of the prophet and had seen him!!!

77

As Salaam u alaikum,
In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful.

004.024 *Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath Allah ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property,- desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and Allah is All-knowing, All-wise. *

004.025 *If any of you have not the means wherewith to wed free believing women, they may wed believing girls from among those whom your right hands possess: And Allah hath full knowledge about your faith. Ye are one from another: Wed them with the leave of their owners, and give them their dowers, according to what is reasonable: They should be chaste, not lustful, nor taking paramours: when they are taken in wedlock, if they fall into shame, their punishment is half that for free women. This (permission) is for those among you who fear sin; but it is better for you that ye practise self-restraint. And Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. *

In verses 24-25, the word "muhsanat" has been used in two different senses: 1 "Wedded women" enjoying the protection of their husbands; and 2 "Free Muslim women" enjoying the protection of their families even if they be un-married. In verse 24, "muhsanat" has been used for "un-married free Muslim women" as against the slave-girls, as is clear from the context. On the contrary in verse 25 "muhsanat" has been used for the slave-girls in the first sense and it has been clearly stated that when they are married and enjoy the protection of their husband.

My question is to all those who have read the Quran cover to cover! Since all of you claim to have the ability to understand the Holy Quran so well that the teachings and practice of the Prophet SAW are meaningless to you.

Q. I need to know ** what is the exact meaning of the word "muhsanat"?**

78

Ibrahim:

Can you clarify a few things.

You write:

But those that are convicted and admonished publicly have only one option that being to marry each other and repent for their misadventure.

Regarding single people who commit fornication, and its proven --

are you telling me it is expected, Islamically, that one must marry the person one fornicated with?

If so, can you provide reference to a Quranic ayah, or a hadith please? Thanks.

If so, how is that different from the Christian practrice, as perscribed in the Bible, where a rapee must marry her rapist?

79

hence If Allah forbids stoning as the form of punishment which HE had approved in the past, you would have found the verse for its forbiddance in the Qur’an, it is as simple as that!

yes of course, but when one talks about music, and no prohibition is used in the Quran ag/ music, we still have a load full of muslims saying that music is haraam.

If its haraam, then why wouldn’t the Quran say it clearly? It is as simple as that!

Likewise, I could say that if God decided to change the rule to flogging only, then he would have clearly written in the Quran.

O wait, He did that.

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Its also plausible that the verses in the Torah are wrong about stoning, in that stoning was NEVER prescribed punishment. It might have been something else, and then man changed it to stoning - do you have proof that you can contradict this statement?

Also,

BTW Islam is not based on anyone’s whims and fancies , IT IS BASED ON THE QUR’AN AND SUNNAH OF THE PROHET (pbuh)

Exactly, Ibrahim. You say this yourself, and you still quote the Torah’s perscribed punishment as Islamic.

If you qoute the Torah for this one verse, then why dont you follow the whole Torah. Or did God somehow convey info to you on which verses in the Torah are authentic, and which are not?

The very title of this thread as written by gandalf is blasphemous since Allah (swt) did approve stoning

I agree with ahmadjee on this since his remarks are supported by history, and your remarks are weak since none of us knows when the verse on flogging in the Quran was revealed. It is VERY plausible that the Rasul followed the Torah on the punishment for adultery and fornication, and then CHANGED when a new verse was given for the new punishment: flogging.

Also, Ibrahim you state the stoning is for the married and flogging for the unmarried. I understand the logic behind this belief. However, can you produce an ayah in which the flogging punishment is clearly being assigned to only the unmarried sinners?

If you can, I think it would make things more clearer. Thanks.

I also state again, that its VERY possible that the punishment was changed. If God permitted drinking alcohol until the time of the Rasul, in which it was prohibited due to abuse of the alcohol, then why is it so hard to accept the mere POSSIBILITY that the stonging punishment was also changed to flogging, since stoning was being abused even by the followers of the Torah? Even the hadith that Mahiwal put up shows these people abusing the stonging punishment, by not even using it!!!

YOU KNOW WHAT MIGHT HELP HERE SUPPORT THE ARGUMENT OF STONING IS UNISLAMIC?

Can anyone dig up a hadith in which flogging is perscribed for an adultery case? At least we’ve established that flogging is for fornication…so maybe there is a hadith in which adulterers were flogged, and not stoned?

80

[quote]
Originally posted by PyariCgudia:
**
are you telling me it is expected, Islamically, that one must marry the person one fornicated with?

If so, can you provide reference to a Quranic ayah, or a hadith please? Thanks.

**
[/quote]

In the name Of Allah, The Compassionate, The Merciful

024.003 Let no man guilty of zina 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.