Serious Hadith explains Quran :

Discussion in 'Islamic Discussion' started by Pure-heart, Feb 14, 2016.

  1. saif
    Offline

    saif Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2006
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings Received:
    +66 / 8
    I don't have to negate any hadith. We just have to analyse it in the light of Quran. This hadith, for example says, we cannot kill any muslim except for these three cases. I ask, where is Muhaarba and where is Fasad fil ard in this list? Of course, it is not Prophet's but Rawi's mistake. But how do we categorize a hadith, about which we are sure, that Rawi was forgetful about its content?

    See, this is the whole dilema, which I am trying to address in this thread. Quran has something to say on this issue and we quote ahadith without getting bothered by what Quran is saying. Look at the words of Quran and decide for yourself:

    "He who killed a human being without the latter being guilty of killing another

    or of spreading disorder in the land should be looked upon as if he killed all

    mankind."
    (5:32)

    According to Quran, the only exceptions to the rule of not killing a human beings are murder and fasad fil ard. Quran's language is not accepting any addition to that list. But we make it so easy on us by saying, ok, Quran says this and that and the Prophet has added to that by his Sunnah.

    Instead of relying on Quran, whose words are chosen by Allah himself, you are asking me to consider taking the words of a Rawi, who is even forgetful about the exact words of the Prophet. Do you really think, it is a good idea?

    To be continued.
    Wassalmu alaikum
  2. saif
    Offline

    saif Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2006
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings Received:
    +66 / 8
    Here, at least you can see, that the Prophet is asking her about the father of the child, which is quite a natural question to ask, if a woman is accused of fornication because of her pregnancy.

    He spoke about his crime on investigation of the Prophet, when even a child was born. And there is no mention of any punishment, whatsoever, to the woman. Do I need any further analysis?

    Wassalamu alaikum
  3. saif
    Offline

    saif Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2006
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings Received:
    +66 / 8
    Dear brother, as far as I know your language is arabic and maybe you have arabic origine too. Ask yourself, what kind of an arab was the husband of that woman, who, instead of reporting that case himself asked for a heavy ransom from the family of his employee for keeping his mouth shut. In English, we have words like blackmailing and extortion for this. Was it a simple case of a fornication or was he lured into it to earn heavy money as extortion. From the behaviour of the husband, we have every reason to believe, that the servant was lured into it. Because of the extraordinary situation, which leaves all such doubts, it is not a good idea to reverse engineer the law from this hadith. I hope, you agree with that.


    There is a difference between repeated fornication and prostitution. In most of the cases, fornication happens, when a natural liking between a man and a woman gets perverted and turns to habitual sexual encounters. It still remains fornication and does not become prostitution.

    The repetition in this case is referring to repeatedly getting caught. I have no objection, if a ta'zeer-punishment is added to hadd in that case.

    By this, I am done with my answers to your post. Jazakallah khair for taking time to read all that and jazakallah khair for your patience.

    Wassalamu alaikum
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2016
  4. saif
    Offline

    saif Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2006
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings Received:
    +66 / 8
    Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh dear brother Cabixahim

    In one of my posts, I had given a list of scholars, who take the punishment of unmarried adulterers also from Sunnah and not from Quran. With this post, I want to give a comparatively complete picture about who says what:

    • Ahnaaf believe, that the punishment of unmarried adulterers is from Quran and it is 100 lashes. The punishment of married adulterers is from "Sunnah" and it is rajm.
    • Shwafe' and Malakia have the same position about married adulterers
    • Imam Malik, Imam Auza'i, Imam Shafi'i, Imam Ahmed, Imam Daood, Ishaq bin Rahwiah, Sufiyan Thoury, Hasan bin Saleh and Ibn Abi Lailah take the punishment of unmarried adulterers also from Sunnah and that is 100 lashes and 1 year of banishment.
    • Imam Ahmed, Ishaq bin Rahwia and Dawood Zahiri do not agree with others on the married adulterers. According to them, the married adulterers are to be stipulated 100 lashes according to Quran and then rajm following the sunnah.
    • Imam Ahmed attributes the same to Ali, who ordered 100 lashes to a woman named sharaha on thursday and then he odered her rajm on Friday, saying, following Quran I lashed her and following sunnah I stoned her. (Ahmad, Raqam 839)
    In other words, there is a whole spectrum of opinions available. That that hadith under our consideration was mansookh, it is not a well accepted fact. There are at least some important names, who disagree.

    Wassalamu alaikum
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2016
  5. saif
    Offline

    saif Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2006
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings Received:
    +66 / 8
    Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh dear brother Cabixahim

    I want to remind you, that there are two open issues in my previous posts:
    1. The issue about naming at least one woman, who was brought out of house confinement and later stoned. Remember, I originally wanted our discussion to be confined to that hadith, which I have chosen as a case-study. Although, I have analyzed all the other cases you have presented, I could actually say, that they were some other cases and were not necessarily applicable to that hadith.
    2. The issue about the difference between rape and adultery as a crime. I had asked you certain questions. Your answers will help me getting further in our discussion.
    Wassalamu alaikum.
  6. cabdixakim
    Offline

    cabdixakim Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2013
    Messages:
    147
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings Received:
    +80 / 2
    wa'aleykumas'salaam warahmatul'Lahi wabarakatuh, brother

    I think this is getting complicated for us and anyone who maybe following it...

    First of all, I think,while maybe having an idea of where you're coming from, you have no idea what my posts are about... for instance, what you so often repeat is that I'm getting to the Hadd of adultery by applying reverse engineering to the hadith about Mai'z and Ghamdiyah... which is way off my purpose for mentioning those two hadiths...

    My position about Hadd for married adulterers is not based on those two incidents only; it is based on Sunnah Muttawir and clear authentic hadiths...

    We all got into this; after you have asked me for explanation of a particular hadith... and so I told you about it's status of being regarded as mansookh and difference of opinions(among them that of the likes of Ghamidi) of its message about Rajm... and so you insisted on elaborating that(Ghamidi's) view for whatever the reason, and I decided to negate it using the two incidents of Mai'z and Ghamdiyah( not to prove that Rajm is for married adulterers) but to ask the question; how are their cases 'fasaad fil ardh'? and the question; where and what historical account or hadith/sunnah is that theory of Ghamaidi based on?... and so you've taken the route which sounds means;

    "since we don't know the name of husband of the Ghamdiyah , then she could only have been a prostitue( using the absence of something to prove the existence of something which has no trace of being there). And since the confession of Mai'z came after apprehention(→ using one hadith and completely ignoring many hadiths of the opposite side of the coin_ simply favouring one authentic hadith over many authentic hadiths) and the girl was let go( →again not bothering to know or hear about a scenario where the man confesses but the lady does not) then his case surely must have been a rape case( → again using the absence of one thing(punishment for the girl)to prove the existence of something else(rape case)"... and so I, having seen where we're heading asked a question; what authentic hadith is the theory of 'Rajm is only for Fasaad fil ardh' based on since "Rajm is for married adulteres" is based on a list of Ahadith I copied?... And you again, most dramatically , negated them or looked for them a deficiency.
    ......... This is so far, the simplicity I see in the discussion... but now it became complicated with questions being fired for no obvious objectives and simply flooding to other topics.

    But nevertheless, I believe I know the aim of your whole discussion which is; to prove that some scholars(and for that matter most muslims) give precedence to hadith over the Qur'an... but you've taken the wrong hadith(the one about a principle clearly in the Sunnah) for a case-study and I was forced to say, " hold on! There is difference of opinion here, with the majority rightfuly on the opposite end to your opinion"... so we must and should be stuck here! That unless you prove Rajm is only for the case of Fasaad fil ardh then the consensus of the scholars based also on Sunnah muttawatir uphold the correct opinion about that hadith and the principle in it.

    But to get back to what you asked me; firstly I said and will say again the hadith is regarded mansookh! Does that sound to you "discarded"? The part abrogated by the actions and words of the Prophet(p.b.u.h) is mansookh, the part which by word and action still commanded by the prophet(p.b.u.h), what abrogated it? Because it's part of the initial hadith?... Besides Imaam Shafi'i and the likes derive the rule "100 lashes and banishment" for unmarried adulterers from other hadiths among them is the one I posed as a question to which you gave disatisfactory reply.
    ( your list of scholars is meant to say "they give priority to hadith over the Qur'an" but the issue at hand is Rajm which is well rooted in the Sunnah)

    ii) About the challenge of mentioning any woman removed from confinement and stoned; I think that completely makes us two people completely ignorant of what they're discussing... How does it matter if we don't have any narration about women practically being levied of the confinement punishment or I simply don't know of any(by lack of knowledge) since the rule is abrogated by action and words of the Prophet(p.b.u.h)? Are you suggesting that the married adulterous women are to be confined until death takes them even today? So a baseless question... I, as well, have the right to challenge you " mention one woman who was removed from house confinement and later flogged with 100 lashes?"

    iii) and about the difference of rape and adultery; which I intentionally avoided_because we can'y keep on jumping from topic to topic... Rape has it's rulings and place in the Shariah.

    my approach is one thing at a time... and so I'm all absorbed at the moment in the discussion: which of these is understood from Sunnah; Rajm for married adulterers(where I stand) and Rajm only for fasaad fil ardh(where you stand)

    And do tell me you did not just negate or explain those hadiths just like that!

    But I'll repeat them in question form...
    i) the first Hadith of (Bukhari volume9 book83 number 17) ...really? Either you regard the hadith as fabricated or you have no argument there! Because the hadith does not say only... "except" is a language often used in hadiths...how does it sound "only" to you? Many other hadiths tackle the rest of the list. Even the the verse of the Qur'an says for Qisas and fasaad fil ardh, so what if one asks, " and what about for self defence?" So that's dangerous strange logic!

    ii) The hadith of (Sunan Abu Daud4435)... again, unless you say the hadith is fabricated, you really have no argument... if you believe the hadith to be authentic, regardless of the fate of the woman, the married man gets stoned( and he was a good man, no rapist_from the words of his people)... so in that hadith, Rajm applies to a man who was not spreading mischief in the land but was coincedently married! What claim of the two does that proof?

    iii) in the hadith Sunan Abu Daud 4445... it makes you sound like good hypothesist but it is far from the apparent picture and truth about the hadith... again, unless you say the hadith is fabricated, it completely supports the principle that " Rajm is for married adulterers"... and I see no point arguing your hypothesis.
    *edit* and Oh yes! I'm not an Arab... I'm a somali :) but well aware the Arab men have "gheerah" as do all of us!

    IV) and are you saying "one can commit as many adultery as possible and will not be regarded as a prostitute as long as she does not get paid as her profession"? So it's taking money or similar and doing it as her work that makes one a prostitute and not the repeating of the action?... if that's the case then; who's worse between: a woman who did adultery 10 times while getting paid as her profession and another who does it 20 times but only due to her lust and desires? And the fact that, the former woman only happens to have done it with 5 different individuals while the latter does it with 10?

    .... one issue at a time(that's why only Rajm and your theory and questions and counter questions to reach a conclusion for that) although I'm aware your ultimately goal is to sum it all under "the scholars gave precedence to Hadith over Qur'an"... which I don't know why I should defend it or why it should change the facts "hadith explains Qur'an" and "the scholars are not infallible"
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2016
  7. saif
    Offline

    saif Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2006
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings Received:
    +66 / 8
    Assalamua alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh brother Cabixahim

    Thank you brother for your patience and persevierence. I want to reassure you, that it is not because of any false pride, that I believe, what I believe. It is because I have strong reasons to do that. Yet we should continue talking in a good manner in the spirit of the words of one of A'imma: "We consider our opinion to be correct but do not reject the probability of it being wrong. We consider the opinion of our opponents to be wrong but do not reject the possibility of it being correct".

    InshaAllah, this answer will also be in several posts because with your good intentions you have opened up so many fronts, that it was difficult for me to find a starting point. In my last post, I had given a full spectrum of opinions of our old scholars. I now want to explain, how they come to their conclusions. InshaAllah it will serve the original title of this thread and will be educative for the viewers of this thread and above all will serve to get our discussion further.

    Abrogation of Quran by Sunnah (Naskh al Quran bisSunnah) and Ahnaaf

    Our classical scholars too had the same problem to solve. They had Quran saying something on a certain matter and they had several ahadith telling a different story. The question is what Usool they applied to resolve this conflict and come the their own conclusions.

    Usool al fiqh scholars of hanafiyya tradition are of the view, that abrogration (Naskh) of Quran can happen through "Sunnah". To elaborate their view, they usually use a "kalami" explanation. They say, both Quran and Sunnah are revelation (Wahi) of Allah. The only difference is, that Quran is the word of Allah (Wahi matlu) and Sunnah is wahi khafi. They both are revealed on the heart of the Prophet. So in essence they are not different from eachother. By that they conclude, that naskh of Quran by Sunnah is actually Naskh of wahi by wahi. So, they say, if Quran can do naskh of its own verses, then Sunnah, which is also wahi can also do naskh of Quran.

    Since there is a difference in the way Quran has reached us and ahadith have reached us, they further differentiate, which ahadith can do naskh and which cannot. Quran has reached us with ijma and tawatur. Ahadith on the other hand are akhbar al ahaad. So they coined the term Sunnah mutawatarah and said, only matawatar can do naskh of mutawatar. That means, akhbar al ahaad cannot do naskh in Quran.

    On the matter of the punishment of adultery, they say, rajm of the married is mutawatar and therefore, it has done naskh of Quran for the married. 1 year of banishment of the unmarried, on the other hand, does not reach the status of mutawatar for them and so they take quranic punishment for them.

    Takhsis bil 'Aql and Shawafe'

    Shawafe' on the other hand fully reject, that Sunnah can do any tahdid (limiting the meaning within certain frontiers), takhsis (limiting a common meaning for the "proper") or ta'qid (conditionalizing the meaning) in Quran. They say, only Quran can do naskh of Quran and only Hadith can do naskh of Hadith.

    So when we see ahadith conflicting with Quran, it is actually the fault of our understanding because the meaning of the verses was the same as explained by ahadith, only we couldn't understand it by our limited understanding.

    So on Quran 24:2, they would say, it was inborn in the meaning of Quran, that it was for the unmarried only and meant as a part of punishment only and if we couldn't see that, then it is the fault of our understanding. So their reading of Quran 24:2 would be the following

    "The [unmarried] woman or [unmarried] man found guilty of sexual intercourse - lash each one of them with a hundred lashes (as a part of their punishment), and do not be taken by pity for them in the religion of Allah , if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a group of the believers witness their punishment."

    Please note, that the words in italics in the above translation are added by myself to the original translation of Sahih International to further elaborate the meaning, which they really take from that verse.

    To elaborate their point, they have coined the term "Takhsis bil 'Aql", by which, they mean, that the meaning, which hadith is giving Quran is nothing but a rational consequence. The meaning of this term can be understood by the following example:

    Teacher says to his students, tomorrow you have to be in class by 7 O'clock, otherwise you will fined 20$. So if a student is too lazy and appears at 8 in the school, it is understandable that he should be fined. But what, if a student meets an accident and has to be hospitalized. Should he be fined? Everybody would say, it is irrational to fine him. So, although the original statement of the teacher was, that everybody had to be in the class by 7, it is "Takhsis bil 'Aql", that if someone meets an accident, he would not be fined for being late.

    So in the same sense, they say, the addition of "unmarried" or "as a part of their punishment" in the above translation of Quran 24:2 is no naskh and no addition to the meaning but only takhsis bil 'aql.

    Sunnah can be abrogated by Sunnah. So if a hadith says lash 100 times before stoning and we find no hadith, where the Prophet actually lashed people before stoning, then we would consider that hadith to be abrogated.

    Why does Imam Ahmed come to a different Conclusion?

    Imam Ahmed, Ishaq bin Rahwia and Dawood Zahiri adhere to the same usool as that of shawafe'. So why then they come to a different conclusion. This is because they give preference to the ahadith providing the law over the ahadith applying the law. They justify it by an important Usool, that if something is not mentioned in ahadith, it does not prove, that that does not exist. So if it is not mentioned in ahadith, that people were lashed 100 times before getting stoned, it does not prove, that they were not lashed in reality. So if the hadith is saying, lash them 100 times before stoning, then we would assume, that they were actually lashed before stoning, only the Rawi has not mentioned it.

    In this post I have tried my level best to explain the Usool, which our respected Fuqaha apply to come to their conclusions. In my next post, I will discuss their usool further.

    To be continued

    Wassalamu alaikum
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2016
  8. saif
    Offline

    saif Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2006
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings Received:
    +66 / 8
    Some may wonder, why I have not mentioned Malakiya here. This is because I don't know their argumentation. However, usually, they are very close to Hanafiyya.

    Why should we keep revisiting the arguments of our Fuqaha

    This is because our respected fuqaha have never asked us to take something from them only because it is THEY who have given a verdict on a certain issue. They have always given their dala'el from rationality ('aql) and from the quotes of quran and hadith (naql). It is evident, that in the realm of reasoning, everything will be accepted with daleel and evereything will be rejected with daleel. If daleel is strong, every seeker of truth should accept that. If daleel is not strong, then it shouldn't matter, if the supporters of it are the great scholars from our Salaf or Khalf. Instead, the real seeker of the truth should reject it with all his force.

    Revisiting arguments of Ahnaaf

    I was personally raised as a hanafee. But I have absolutely no inhibitions in rejecting their arguments. Fortunately, we have a small minority of Ahnaaf in this forum. Brother Cabixahim seems to be from Shafi'i/Salafi tradition. So I will spare my arguments and quote Imam Shatibi and move on:

    upload_2016-3-8_10-30-31.png

    "The meaning of Sunnah being a judge on Kitaab does not mean it could be given preference over Kitaab and Kitaab would be left left for Sunnah. Instead everything which is described in Sunnah is actually meant by Kitaab. So Sunnah holds the status of Exegesis and Explanation of the meanings of the commandments of the Kitaab. The same has been said in the verse of Quran: upload_2016-3-8_10-36-7.png "

    However, before going any further, I have to give them their due credit. They were at least honest enough to accept, that by accepting the punishment of the married from ahadith, the naskh of Quran is happening. They are not trying to prove, that it was inborn and it was always there in the verse, just we couldn't see that. I have to say, I agree with them on this point.

    Revisiting arguments of Shwafe'

    I have to say, I am inclined to accept the usool of Imam Shafi'i, that Sunnah cannot abrogate Quran. Numerous evidences can be presented from Quran itself to support this view. Again, I will make it short because most of the readers including brother cabdixakim would also have no problem accepting it.

    If I have my differences, then they are in the application of this usool and not in usool itself. Takhsis bil Aql is also a rationaly understandable principle. The examples, which are usually given to establish this principle are all very good. However, in application of this usool on Quran, things do not remain as transparent. If something was always rationally in a verse of Quran, then it should also be rationally understandable. If we take all ahadith to govern the meaning of Quran and claim the meaning was inside, just we couldn't see it, where will be end up? We will and actually we have ended up taking even greater freedoms with the text of Quran than those who consider the abrogation of Quran by Sunnah as possibility. Where is the position of Quran being meezan of Allah on this earth? It is natural, that I would be more inclined to accept an explanation, which remains within these usool but apply it with more deliberation, explains all remaining doubts in the explanation of all available ahadith and all verses of Quran.
    So if somebody asks me to accept those addition in brackets in the above translation of Quran 24:2 as takhsis bil aql, I will just raise my hands and say "sorry, I cannot accept that".

    In theory everything is fine. In application, I would like to keep my freedom to accept an application, which looks more explanable to me with aql and naql.

    Revisiting arguments of Imam Ahmad

    I didn't know that in the beginning, when I started this discussion but now I am very happy to see, that Imam Ahmad also sees the difference between the ahadith describing the law and ahadith describing the application of law. It is so natural to take the law from the ahadith describing the law, instead of deriving from the application of law, that I am wondering, how a vast majority of muslims could neglect this important principle. Secondly, the principle, that not being mentioned in ahadith does not provide an evidence of its non-existence is such an important principle to understand the nature of ahadith. Remember brother Cabixakim, you apply this principle too, when you assume, that the Ghamidiya must have been married, even though hadith does not tell you, that the Prophet asked about it. Or when I conclude, that when the woman with child is not mentioned to be punished she was not punished, then I use the same principle in my favour. And when you argue, that she must have been punished without being mentioned in hadith, then you are applying the same principle in your favour.

    So when we are all constantly applying this principle in our own favours, why shouldn't Imam Ahmad, Ishaq bin Rahwiya and Imam Dawud Zahiri should be accepted to use the same principle in their favour.

    The opinion of Imam Ahmad has an added advantage, that I do not have to accept those additions in Quran 24:2 as takhsis bil aql. Quranic punishment retains its meaning for both married and unmarried and an addition is accepted from Sunnah.

    To be continued
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2016
  9. saif
    Offline

    saif Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2006
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings Received:
    +66 / 8
    Brother, I hope you now understand, that I have some idea, where you are coming from. And after reading Imam Ahmad's view on giving precedence to the hadith giving the law over those describing the application of law, I have a strong hope, that you now understand, what I mean by reverse engineering the law from the application of law. The ahadith describing the application of law leave so many open questions, that they cannot be considered as a source of law.

    If it is still not clear, then let me know. If needed, I can explain my point by using mathematical terms like "domain", "range", "function" and "inverse function". You have to excuse me for that because I know no other language :)

    I hope, it is clear upon you, that you are not talking to someone who denies rajm for the married. It certainly is one important or maybe the important condition to choose from the available punishments. We have enough evidence to prove, that there may have been many other reasons for the Prophet to come to his decisions.

    In one particular incident, which happened some 30 years ago in a rural area of Pakistan, I would have been inclined to request the judge to punish that UNMARRIED culprit with rajm, if I were the procecutor. There was this unmarried man, who would do zina with the dead bodies of the women, who were newly burried in the graveyard. As far as I can remember, he was given death penalty but I am not sure.

    The point, which I am trying to make is, that I have no intention to make it milder or harder than it is actually meant by Allah. However, I would like it to be explainable by considering all verses of Quran and all hadith of the Prophet.

    That hadith, from which we started just happened to come to my view because it had recently been posted. I did have some thoughts before choosing it as a "case study" but in retrospect I think, it was a very good decision. I think, it has given us the opportunity to explain our views about interaction of Quran and Hadith at length.

    I have told you, that it was not Mr. Ghamidi's theory. It was explained this way by Imam Hamiduddin Farahi. I have given you the evidence while explaining that hadith in our consideration, that the Prophet is telling us, that Allah as provided a way for "those women" and then I have shown you, in which verses Allah as actually announced the same punishments, which the Prophet is announcing.

    You know very well, that that was not my argument. My argument is, if you are taking the right to assume, that she was married, even though the Prophet has not been reported to have asked her about it, then why shouldn't I assume, she was a prostitute because she is never accompanied by any of his relatives, she was not asked about the father of the child (even though prophet asked it to another woman in another hadith), and there is nothing more known about that woman, not even her name, except that she was the tribe of Ghamidiya.

    Let us assume, all my assumptions are wrong and I have no right to assume all that. But then even you cannot use this case to prove your point because trying to derive rajm for the married from that hadith, when she was never asked about her merital status is nothing but circular logic.

    To be continued
  10. saif
    Offline

    saif Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2006
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings Received:
    +66 / 8
    While explaining the view of Imam Ahmad I have explained, that it is an established principle while studying ahadith. This is because Rawi is a human and he could have missed some important detail. However, the same is not acceptable for Quran because the words of Quran are Allah's own words. I ask you, where does you Gheirah go, when the same treatment is given to Quran? Why don't you deny to accept it, when something is added in brackets, which has absolutely no trace in the language of Quran?

    Actually, this is the difference between you and me. You are always prepared to accept those additions to the real meanings of Quranic words and not prepared to accept any mistake of missing an important detail in ahadith. I am exact opposite of you in this regard. I accept Quran as Quran is. I am prepared to accept that if some ahadith are not explainable with Quran, then Rawi might have missed some important detail.

    Again, I don't know why you are assuming, that I reject those ahadith, which stipulate rajm for the married. I have told you, that I consider zina after marriage to be a form of fasad fil ard. I have also told you, that Quran is giving the choice to the judge to choose from the mildest punishment of banishment to the harshest punishment of taqteel. I have no problem in accepting, that by making use of that choice, Prophet has chosen to stipulate rajm for married adulterers. I am also inclined to accept, that it was the most important reason for the Prophet to make his choice. I am not inclined to accept, that it was the only reason of his choice, given the fact, that many other reasons were available, which could have led the Prophet to use that punishment.

    Let me now tell you the reason of my two questions, which I have raised. They have a direct purpose to serve in our discussion. They were not asked to waste your time.

    (i) The question about missing incident in ahadith about women actually meant in Quran 4:15 was asked you to get you to the realization, that ahadith do not cover everything. If something is not mentioned in ahadith, it does not mean it is non existent.

    (ii) The questions about punishment of rape were raised to get you to realization, that there is some added nuisance to the basic crime of adultery, which has to be dealt with some added punishment. We have had this discussion in the context of Hudood Ordinace in Pakistan, where mullahs (who are always on the wrong side) want us to believe, that the punishment of rape is the same as that of adultery. I can only hope, you don't belong to that group of mullahs.

    The question about old rapist was asked to get you to argument with that supposedly "taken out" verse of Quran, which, in a totally non-quranic language talks about a "sheikh" and "sheikha", who have to be stipulated with rajm. By that I wanted to show you, what kind of dhulm we muslims are prepared to do with Quran.

    to be continued
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2016
  11. saif
    Offline

    saif Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2006
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings Received:
    +66 / 8
    Alhamdulillah, I am very happy, I have taken that hadith. And you have been a great help to get our discussion to touch the points, which we usually do not touch. I am really thankful to you for that.

    As for Rajm being the punishment for Fasaad fil ardh, I have said, what I wanted to say. Of course, you have all the right to uphold the "consensus" of the scholars (which, by the way, has never existed).

    Even if in the heat of discussion you may not agree, I am sure, you will get back to read this thread, once you will realize, what the ummah has been doing with Quran and what consequences it is facing for that. I will wait for that time to come.

    I have explained myself, how Imam Shafi'i comes to his conclusions. So I do understand your arguments. By explaining the views of hanafiyya and hanbaliyya, I hope I could get you to realize, that it is not the only reality among muslims.

    I have discussed above the purpose of my questions. I hope everything about those questions is clear now.

    That is also my approach and I am all absorbed at the moment to understand the relationship between Quran and Hadith, which is the original intent of this thread. That hadith and the resulting discussion on rajm has provided me an excellent opportunity to make my point.

    To be continued
  12. saif
    Offline

    saif Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2006
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings Received:
    +66 / 8
    I confess arabic is not my language and my knowledge in arabic is too limited to comment on the language aspects of that hadith. However, I would have thought, the arabic word "illa" or except in English should not leave any space for some further exceptions to be added to the list. Apply it to La ilaha illa Allah and you will realize, how dangerous that is.

    Again I am willing to accept, that in Hadith this could be acceptable because Rawi could have forgotten some elements of the list, which we can get from other ahadith or Quran. But for Quran I cannot accept that. The words of Quran as chosen by Allah himself. The question of self defence, which you have about the quranic verse handling the ONLY exceptions to hurmah of life, can be presented as an excellent example of takhsis bil aql. I have told you, I accept it as a valid principle. However, again here I have a different opinion on qatl in self defence or qitaal in self defence than that presented by the likes of Zakir Naik in their discussions to win the debates.

    My point is, you are not always allowed to do qatl in your self defence, just like you are not always allowed to do qitaal in your self defence. Qitaal will be done only against dhulm and 'udwaan. (Plus it is done and has been done by the Prophet and his companions against the deniers of the da'wah of a rasool after his Itmaal al Hujjah, but that qitaal is special for the Prophet and his companions and not meant for us). Now assume, you are a muslim citizen of a dhalim muslim state and another state has decided to start a war to liberate some non-muslims being oppressed in your muslim state. (We have several examples in the recent history to prove, that that example is a realistic one). Will you then join your army to defend your land? No, I don't think it is a good idea. It would be better for you to die in negation of joining the dhalim army than to die in "self defence" against another army, which was fighting against dhulm.

    Likewise, the self defence argument can only be used by the sleeping owner of the house and not by burglers, no matter how committed the burglers were not to kill anybody in the house.

    So yes, it is a takhsis bil aql. It was always there in the verse, that you are allowed to kill in certain circumstances in self defence. But not in all circumstances.

    But otherwise, the list is complete. It leaves no space for any other additions. If we are seeing it conflicting with some ahadith, then it is the lack of deliberation on our part.

    Why should I do something for which I have no qualification and no right. I have accepted that hadith as it is and pointed out that it is offering enough space for my view to be accepted. In fact, I have more right to assume, that the woman was not punished and therefore it is not reported in hadith than you to assume that she was punished but it didn't get reported.

    It is not a mere hypothesis. Was it not the reason for that case to come before the Prophet, that that man was not willing to return, what the father had paid as ransom? There is no mention, how that crime came to light. Were they caught by the husband or the wife had told him herself, that she was successful and now he could ask for ransom. Every sane being would agree, that this scenario is more likely than some ma'soom people getting indulged in a one time adultery in the heat of the moment.

    What I had said was my personal understanding and I am willing to get corrected on that issue. Since slaves and their punishments are a separate topic, I don't think, having one or the other opinion on this hadith really affects our discussion. I hope though, that you understand the difference between sin and crime. My comments were only about the crime aspect of her deeds and not about sin, that's why I underlined, that repetition here is repetition in getting caught. So, I am not denying, that the sin of an adultress could be in certain conditions much bigger than that of a prostitute. I hope, it clarifies my position.

    Alhamdulillah, you are aware, that my intentions are not evil and that's why you are discussing that with me. Otherwise, why would you care. I have never said, hadith has no right to explain quran. Quran was given to the Prophet, so that he could explain that to us with his living example. "Tabiyyin" of Quran is Prophet's duty. I have also said, that if something can be reliably be associated to the Prophet, then it becomes obligatory for every muslim. So where is the problem?

    The problem is in the application of the same golden principles :)

    By this I have come to the end of my reponse. Jazakallah khair for taking time to read it. May Allah reward you abundantly for being a part of this discussion.

    Wassalmu alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh.
  13. cabdixakim
    Offline

    cabdixakim Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2013
    Messages:
    147
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings Received:
    +80 / 2

    Wa'aleykumas'salaam warahmatul'Lahi wabarakatuh,brother

    ... may Allah forgive my sins and your sins as well...

    Much of what you've written is reasonable and agreeable (and is NOT what I have been objecting against you And chose to cut as "Rajm only" Although it's very educative)...

    EXCEPT;

    1)I never stuck myself in any school of thought or shown any sign of my background, I don't know why you'd choose to label me as a member of some people.( not offended, just wondering if that was dismissive of you)

    2) Have you in any place concluded with clear evidence that Rajm is only in the case of fasaad fil ardh( in case of prostitution,rape)?

    ... We have endured to write alot already and I've requested for an issue by issue so let me enable us be all absorbed with this issue of Rajm only(without of course, repeating ourselves all over again)..

    Firstly, I can clarify myself further...Under fasaad fil ardh, many crimes come; among them Zina( did I in any place say that Zina is not fasaad fil ardh_as per the scope of its meaning?), apostacy is a form of fasaad fil ardh, Zina of the unmarried is also a form of fasaad fil ardh, Sihr, Murder,treason are they not all defined as fasaad fil ardh?... There are however forms of fasaad fil ardh that call for prescribed punishments such as Zina and therefore the options of (Q 5:33) do not apply... for married adulterers I say, Rajm is a prescribed punishment and I based my opinion on the many ahadith I quoted and it being Mutawattir. And your claim is that since it's fasaad fil ardh then the Leader of muslims has the option of Ta'ziir. And this is where we depart...

    ( my argument; Rajm is Had( fixed prescribed punishment) your argument; rajm is for married adulterers but the Caliph/Amiir has the option to choose among list of punishments as ta'zir)

    first of all,

    1)I'm yet to see in which Sunnah, hadith or verse of Qur'an that you base your claim... for instance, is there any evidence(you have) showing/referring to that the Prophet(p.b.u.h) made Ta'zir for married adulterers? In fact, many of the ahadith I quoted completely indicate the opposite(even in clear words_ as the prophet(p.b.u.h) said " their punishment is Rajm" and not "make Ta'zir about their case as I'm doing now" nor in anywhere among the early muslims)

    2) By saying that ( a) married adulterers are stonned although the Caliph has the choice of degree of punishment AND (b) that (Q24:2) is taken as it is as the sole punishment for both married and unmarried... You're giving us two very contradicting views; a married adulterer is only flogged with 100 lashes according to (b) and in (a) you've taken from the Sunnah that they can be stonned sometimes as a form of fasaad fil ardh, in complete contrast with your view on (Q24:2) and so your claim that Scholars by concluding that Rajm is for married adulterers "give precedence to hadith over the Qur'an" is ,as seen from here, hypocritical,brother.

    ... A married man who committed Zina is stonned for spreading mischief in the land(If the leader chooses) right? What about an unmarried one who committed it many more times, would he be stonned or flogged 100 lashes? And yet your view on (Q24:2) is that both should be flogged 100 lashes!

    3) Assume that I ignore the absolute contradiction and lack of clear demanding evidence raised above and I agree with you that punishment for married adulterers comes under (Q5:33) then; i) who of the married adulterers is given mild punishment? Those who commit it once? Two? Three? The rich, the poor, those depended upon Or who?

    ii) since crusifixtion is part of the option then can the Leader choose to crusify a married adulterer? A prostitute? Or cut off alternating arms and legs Of married adulterers? If that is absurdly yes, then at which degree of adultery must a married adulterer or a prostitute commit to deserve crusifixion?... if No, then you agree that the punishment for married adulterers is fixed ,Hadd ( as Rajm) ...Or you're only fixing its toughest punishment as Rajm but not fixing its mildest punishment ? If yes then what's the bases of that?

    Again, I'm still stuck in Rajm( that it's a wrong principle to examine whether Jafith is favoured over the Qur'an or not since it is well rooted in the Sunnah) And these different Usools applied by different scholars really do not affect the finality of Rajm or prove that where you stand about is correct.
  14. saif
    Offline

    saif Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2006
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings Received:
    +66 / 8
    Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh dear brother Cabdixahim,

    Ameen

    Brother, that was only my assumption on basis of your way of argumentation. I consider all muslims, including Salafis my brothers. I have my differences but that does not mean I don't love them. Even though I would love to see all the stateless jihadis facing punishment of fasaad fil ard, even that does not mean, I have the slightest doubt in their good intentions and sincere followership of the ta'beer of Islam, which they have learnt to be correct. So, no offence was intended. If my assumption was not correct, I apologize for that.

    That must be a good example for "lost in detail", if you still have to ask that question. I accept my mistake and provide my narrative in a few bullet points.
    • Q5:32 leaves no other choice but to seriously consider every death penalty given by the Prophet in cases other than Qisaas for being an application of the quranic law for fasaad fil ard.
    • The language of Q24:2 does not offer any possibility to restrict this punishment for the unmarried only.
    • Mentioning women only in Q4:15 and mentioning their punishment to be house-confinement and then mentioning both men and women and mentioning their punishment to be beating/flogging is the clearest reference of Quran to prostitution.
    • Prophet's reference to Q4:15 and combining punishments of Q5:32 and Q24:2 makes it clear, that the Prophet considers prostitution to be a combination of zina and fasad fil ard. The common sense testifies it.
    • All ahadith and all verses of Quran are best explained by the above 4 postulates.

    I have a slightly different understanding of fasaad fil ard but let us not discuss all our difference in this thread. Let us concentrate, as you suggested on rajm only.

    What is hadd?
    Have I ever said, rajm is a ta'zeer? No, I consider it a hadd. My definition of hadd is: "the maximum punishment (and in some cases maximum and minimum punishment) for certain crimes, which is prescribed by Allah Himself". There are 5 crimes for which hadd is defined: Qatl wa jaraaha (killing and wounding), zina (fornication), Qadhf (false accusation of fornication), muhaarba and fasaad fil ard (treason and mischief on earth), sariqa (theft).

    For every other crime, which the human being can invent, the state has the right to prescribe a punishment and that punishment is called ta'zeer.

    From your description, it looks like you consider hadd to be a fixed punishment and the fact, that I mentioned, that Quran is providing the choice in the punishment caused you to think, that I was talking about some ta'zeer punishment.

    Again, the choice in the punishments of fasaad fil ard is given by Allah Himself and therefore it remains a hadd. Also I have never used the word Caliph. It is an arabic word for ruler but muslims usually attach other phantasies with this word, which is why, I never use this word for rulers. I have actually used the word "judge" or Qadi if you will. The judge has to make the choice by considering the exact nature of the crime and the circumstances of the criminal.

    I don't want to start this discussion here but the principle of considering the exact nature of the crime and the circumstances of the criminal have been taught by Allah and His Messenger. The punishments for slaves, who have not received a good upbringing are halved, for example. I can give you another example, which will make my point even clearer: In a public park in Islamabad, an unmarried couple is caught in "lip lock". Clearly, they were not doing zina. Should they be left scott free? What should be their punishment? What guidance can Quran and Sunnah provide you about fixing their punishment. And when you have fixed that punishment, will you call it a hadd or a ta'zeer? You don't have to reply those questions in your post but I am sure, you will understand, what I mean, when I say, that hadd is a maximum punishment, which is given, when the nature of the crime and the circumstances of the criminal do not let him deserve any concession.

    Please read, what I have written above. For your objection, that no married adulterer was flogged, please read, what I have written in explanation of the hadith under our consideration. Also read, what Imam Ahmad has to say on that matter. Dear brother, I can only try to explain, how I approach this issue. You have the full choice to consider it hypocritical or whatever.

    I have read the opinion of Ustaadh Javed Ahmed Ghamidi on that issue again and he includes habitual zina, which becomes nuisance for the society to be equivalent to prostitution or rape. However, I am not sure, if I want to take that opinion from him. But then, the law is providing some flexibility, so that I can accept it, if rape and prostitution still get higher punishment than habitual zina.

    These are the details, on which we can have one or the other opinion. The law is clear and the law is giving some inherent flexibility to adapt it for a certain society and its crimes. Believe me, people are very creative in their crimes so you will need to make use of its flexibility to cover all shades of crimes. The Prophet has given only 1 year of banishment but the verse is open. So if you have caught somebody doing zina in a mosque, then you might want to give 2 years of banishment instead of 1 year. I don't know, if Prophet has ever amputated anybody in opposite sides. Does that mean, we should never use that punishment? The basic principle is, that Allah has given this choice and we have to apply the law in consideration of the exact nature of the crime and the circumstances of the criminal.

    Again, these are the details of the application of law. Like I said, people are very creative in their crimes. So if you catch a married man raping his own 8 years old daughter, don't you think his crime is much greater than that of Ma'iz? So it is not "absurdly" yes. It is yes. The choice is given by Allah Himself.

    Dear brother, I don't think, I can bring more arguments. So if you are still not satisfied, it is best to agree on our disagreement. May Allah reward you for taking time and trying to explain your point of view to a humble student :)


    Conclusion of our discussion

    We have tried to understand the role of Quran in understanding ahadith and the role of ahadith in understanding Quran. Taking example of a hadith we discussed in length, what difference it makes, if you give Quran pivotal position and then try to understand ahadith or if we give ahadith the pivotal position and import their meaning on Quran by limiting or canceling the verses of Quran. I want to conclude, that Quran calls itself Meezan and Furqaan. So whatever we bring to Quran (be it a hadith or the opinion of a scholar or a verse from bible), Quran can always tell us the exact amount of haq in it.

    If there is no contradiction in hadith to the clear verses of Quran, then hadith can be used for the "tabiyyin" of Quran, which actually means clarifying the intent of the verses. No such changes in the meaning of the verses can be accepted as tabiyyin, which the words of Quran refuse to accept.
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2016
  15. cabdixakim
    Offline

    cabdixakim Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2013
    Messages:
    147
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings Received:
    +80 / 2
    Wa'aleykumas'salaam warahmatul'Lahi wabarakatuh ,brother.

    Aamiin brother, may Allah reward you as well...So far we had a mature discussion unlike many we did before... may Allah forgive our sins and cover our shortcomings...aamiin

    Firstly,The prophet(p.b.u.h) did have the hands and feet of a people cut off...

    secondly, there is nothing in this "conclusion of our discussion" that you've written which I disagree or ever was discussing with you!

    Thirdly, you're right! I'm not at all satisfied with the responses you gave to my posts(from the ahadith I quoted to the last question I asked) which is why you've rightfuly described my state as "lost in details" because many of what you write does not even seem to be answering me...

    ... I too would have chosen to leave this discussion as it is but this your last post and in particular the answers to my questions made it all worse;

    Firstly, I pleaded with you to support your argument "Rajm is only for the case of Fasaad fil ardh(rape,prostitution) With Qur'an,Hadith,Sunnah and from understanding of early muslims... I don't know what makes you believe you did So...

    and then there are these questions:

    i) Did you or did you not say that (Q24:2) is the sole punishment for both married and unmarried adulterers? Did you not also say that the married adulterer is to be stoned?... and that is not a contradiction!? (ignore what Imam Aad had to say) Of course, it is my little understanding after all!

    ii) Did you or did you not say the scholars are wrong and giving precedence to hadith when they speak of 1 year banishment+flogging for the unmarried adulterer Because they go against (Q24:2)? Do you or not say now that it's even possible to have 2 year banishment for the unmarried adulterer( based on your logic)? so by implying the possibility of a 2 year banishment you clear see the source of the 1 year... The scholars said "1 year" and they gave precedence to hadith according to you. You can say "2 years" based on your logic and in no risk of overruling the Qur'an!

    iii) Did you or not say that the punishment for the married adulterer is at the discretion of the ruler/Qadhi/Judge? Do you not now say that Rajm is Hadd?

    iv) Did you not say that even Hadd punishment is at the discretion of the judge?... you need to get back to what is Hadd... I don't think even Ghamidi would agree to what you said... For Hadd is a punishment determined and fixed by Allah and His Rasuul, it is not open for a Judge to decide HOW to do it... when the punishment of the slave is halved, it's done so because Allah commanded it so and not that the Judge has a CHOICE...When some are caught kissing in public the Judge has the choice of and how to discipline them( Ta'ziir)... when married and committed adultery, the Judge does not have the choice of and how to punish them(because it is Hadd)... you cannot say Rajm is Hadd and still give the Judge an option!

    v) Did you now say that crusifixion is applicable to married adulterers? (because that's what I asked)... This is making me wonder whether we're discussing finally tuned and perfected laws of Allah or in astronomy class and discussing how the universe came to be...

    vi) is there even stoning among the options in (Q5:33)? Where do you get stoning from? Aaah! From hadith! Which only you seem to have the right to derive further explanations of the Qur'an!
    How could you be(based on your logic about Qur'anic verses) deem yourself so right and me, associating my self to the understanding of the majority of muslims( based on the Qur'an,hadith,Sunnah Mutawattir and the understanding of early muslims) deemed ever so wrong?

    My conclusion:

    Rajm is Hadd applicable to any free person who undergone a halaal marriage and consumated and committed adultery and the judge does not have a choice of determining the degree of punishment; This is all I'm sitting on and this is all I wanted to discuss and was discussing.
    • Like Like x 1
  16. saif
    Offline

    saif Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2006
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings Received:
    +66 / 8
    Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh dear brother Cabdixahim,
    ok, thank you for clarifying that. But my argument remains: If the Prophet has not given cruicifixion, does that mean, we should never use it, even though it is mentioned in quran as a punishment?

    You agree with me and yet believe the translation of Sahih International of Q24:2 is correct. Either you take, what Quran is saying as it is or you impose foreign content on Quran. I am afraid, the latter is your choice.

    Brother, I do, what I can do. Either I am not good enough in explaining, what I want to say or there is something wrong in your understanding. I confess, the former is the case. Because after reading so detailed answers, I was not expecting you to move in circles again and again and again. The parting of the ways is the best thing to do, when the only thing I have to say is "Read it again brother".

    Brother, read my answers again.


    Q24:2 is about the punishment of zina, which is 100 lashes. Verse itself is not differentiating between married and unmarried. Married adulterers do a combination of crimes: zina and fasad fil ard. This is, what the Prophet explained in ahadith and by his practice. So Q24:2 is applicable to both married and unmarried. Is it so difficult to understand brother? It is really so difficult, or you don't want to understand? I guess, my way of writing is so annoying, that you don't even care to read.

    Again dear brother, punishment of zina is 100 lashes. Period. Full stop. But if zina has happened with jabr (rape) or it is habitual or it is prostitution or it has happened when the person was married. it becomes a combination of zina and fasad fil ard. The Prophet has chosen to combine the lighter of the punishments for fasad fil ard with 100 lashes for the unmarried and that was 1 year of banishment. However, if somebody is creative enough to increase the weightage of his crime by, for example, doing it in mosque, the judge has the right to choose from the choice given by Allah himself. That choice is given by Allah, is it clear? Do you think 2 years of banshment would overrule Quran? Read Quran again brother. Read my answers again. There is hardly anything, which I can add. Read it again.

    Tell me one thing. If Quran is giving the choice in punishments for fasad fil ard, does that mean, it is not a hadd? Yes or no.

    If your answer is, as long as the punishment remains within the hudood given by Allah, it is hadd, then I would ask, who would decide what to choose from the given hudood and on what basis? The judge certainly has to ask all those questions to fix the exact nature of the crime, which the prophet also asked. Alas, you are suggesting to ignore all those questions and to ask the only relevant question: "Are you married". Of course, it is an important question to fix the punishment. But it is not the only question. Depending on the "amount" of fasad fil ard, the punishment can be even harder than rajm. This is because Quran is allowing that to be harder. And if there is a reason for concession, then the judge can choose a milder punishment within the hudood given by Allah. Do you for example agree, that Zafran Bibi should get rajm:

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/may/12/theobserver

    In a poor pathan family, when she was dependent on the family of her husband for each penny and each piece of bread for her children, she was impregnated by a brother of her husband (allegedly by rape), when her husband was in jail. However, the judge was not convinced, that it was a rape and he anncounced rajm for her. Even if it was not a rape, I see a reason for some concession because of her total dependence on the family of her husband and because of absensence of her husband to protect her. You don't see any reason for concession? Do let me know. Will it not be a hadd, if the judge chooses 100 lashes for zina and say 5 years of banishment (read imprisonment in our times) for fasad fil ard, even though it is within the hudood of Allah. It will be a hadd, because it is within the hudood of Allah. And it will be a wise decision. Wiser than stoning that poor woman.

    You have not answered all my questions about fixing the punishment for kissing. The question is, what should be the punishment. Can it be equal to or harder than 100 lashes? Every sane person will say no. So if you decide for, say, 10 lashes, what have you don? There was a crime, which was lesser in nature than zina, so you chose a lesser punishment than 100 lashes. Call it a ta'zeer or whatever, that does not matter. You would not have that choice, if the nature of the crime was not offering you that concession. So if they would have been caught doing zina, I am in no way, suggesting to give them any milder punishment than 100 lashes.

    No, I can assure you, you are not in an astronomy class and Allah is not teaching astronomy in Q5:33.

    Stoning is a form of Taqteel, which is mentioned in Q5:33. To confuse you even further, I have to add, we can choose another form of Taqteel, in our times. Every painful death penalty can be called Taqteel. The Prophet is acting upon Quran. He has chosen rajm as taqteel. Is it clear?

    You are imposing meanings on Quranic verses, you are declaring ahadith to be abrogated and yet you think your opinion is the correct one. Show me, which hadith I have denied and where did I impose some foreign opinion on Quran? In fact, I am trying to show you, that your opinion is based on denying verses of Quran and denying ahadith of the Prophet. And my opinion is based upon Quran and Sunnah.

    Rajm is a hadd, because it is within the hudood given by Allah in Q5:33. Even a milder punishment within the same hudood will be a hadd. Married adulterers do a combination of crimes: Zina and fasad fil ard. Prophet has given this punishment in conjunction with the quranic punishment of 100 lashes for zina and announced the same in that hadith, which you consider to be abrogated.
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2016
  17. saif
    Offline

    saif Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2006
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings Received:
    +66 / 8
    sorry, that was my mistake.
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2016
  18. saif
    Offline

    saif Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2006
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings Received:
    +66 / 8
    Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa baraktuh brother Cabdixahim

    Just to set the record straight: This is your reading of Quran 5:32

    Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land [ and unless for zina after marriage and unless for irtidaad and unless for homosexuality and unless for incest and unless for working for "taaghut" and on and on...]- it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors.

    And this is your reading for Quran 24:2

    "The [unmarried] woman or [unmarried] man found guilty of sexual intercourse - lash each one of them with a hundred lashes (as a part of their punishment), and do not be taken by pity for them in the religion of Allah , if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a group of the believers witness their punishment."


    And you consider that hadith to be abrogated.

    So in total you have to adultrate/cancel/abrogate 2 verses of Quran and at least 1 hadith in order to keep your viewpoint, yet you are a great defender of Islam. What else is abrogation, if not entering so many things in the verses, which were never there in the language of Quran. So no, you are just saying you agree with my conclusion but in fact your position is actually exact the opposite of that.

    I have shown you a way, by which you can take all verses of Quran and all ahadith as they are and yet I am the enemy, who is insulting the great great great scholars of Islam.

    In fact, verse 5:32 is not giving any other choice than to consider it fasad fil ard. But Quran can say whatever and you are not prepared to move from your position. And then you are asking me again and again and again, I have not proved my point from Quran and ahadith. What proof do you need?

    Ya Allah remain wittness, that I had done my best to warn people in my connection againt the denial of clear verses of Quran.

    Wassalamu alaikum
  19. cabdixakim
    Offline

    cabdixakim Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2013
    Messages:
    147
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings Received:
    +80 / 2

    Wa'aleykumas'salaam warahmatul'Lahi wabarakatuh...

    firstly, kissing is not an intercourse and Hadd applies to the sexual intercourse and so it does not have fixed punishment and it is at the discretion of the Judge which means it cannot be Hadd, deterring others from doing as such (100 lashes or stoning) but ta'zii, disciplining them.

    Secondly, I have not mentioned those verses in any place to present my position... neither did I say that Fasaad fil ardh in the verse is cancelled out... and this what you've been doing; being stuck on the analysis of Ghamidi on how Classical scholars derived conclusions from ahadith ... to the extent that you fail to realise how contradictory you sound and the fact that my discussion is only about Rajm...

    Now that you chose to put words into my mouth, let me remind you of what you do not realise of your views;

    "(Q24:2) gives punishment of both married and unmarried adulterers but since I and Ghamidi and his influencials have the opinion that committing adultery is a fasaad fil ardh then its punishment varries from being banished,stoned or crusified or have alternating arms and legs cut off (hmmm this must be the most extreme ideology which you enlightened me with so far). And we say that because we use common sense, umatchable logic and language of Qur'an and we don't care about evidences from hadith,sunnah or understanding of early muslims..."

    worse than all, you criticise others for not taking (Q24:2) as it is and by their taking its further explanation from the Sunnah... But you advocate for stoning because that's evident in the Sunnah and so you give the previllage of taking from the Sunnah only to your self...

    → adultery of the married is fasaad fil ardh and so is that of the unmarried but because one is graver than the other , the Prophet(p.b.u.h) enforced the command of Allah that the married adulterer is stoned← (further explanation of my points)...

    But you say no, and that that the married adulterer automatically falls under (Q5:33)... explain yourself through these new questions;

    1) Why do you separate people whom Allah joined in the same punishment in (Q24:2→ as you emphasise it to be understood) as 100 lashes, and give one them more extreme punishment? if the verse is speaking of both, which other verse in the Qur'an differentiates them and indicates that the married adulterer falls under (Q5:33) as well?

    2) Why do only the married adulterers fall under (Q5:33) and not so for the unmarried? did you receive Wahyi differentiating the punishment of two people joined as one punishment as you understand in (Q24:2)...

    3)The initial hadith of the discussion, are you saying that you take the difference from it( hold on! You're giving preference to hadith over the Qur'an but any way...) if yes, that hadith clearly gives the punishment of the married adulterer as Rajm and nothing indicates they can be crusified for any sane person! And so where do you base your claim that only the married adulterer falls under (Q5:33)?

    conclusion;

    If we take (Q24:2) as punishment for both married and unmarried then there cannot be any Qur'anic knowledge or analysis that could suggest the stoning of the married adulterer only as mufsid/ah ...

    ... There is no interference with the Qur'anic verses from my point of view as I only see the verses how they were further interpreted by the prophet(p.b.u.h) through his actions and words... and if I was to neglect that because you warn me so then I'd have been left with a noun "fasaad fil ardh" which I have no idea of how it looks like... it is not an intrusion to the Qur'an it is an explanation of the Qur'an!
  20. saif
    Offline

    saif Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2006
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings Received:
    +66 / 8
    Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa baraktuh brother Cabdixahim

    Agreed, but my point is, it is a lesser crime, so there should be a lesser punishment. Because a maximum hadd is given by Allah for fornication. Idiotic would be to support as taziir something like 200 lashes for kissing.


    You have not. But you couldn't be careless about those verses. When you remain at your opnion, these are the only translations possible. This would be your reading of those verses, which is fully rejected by the words of Quran.
    What was that? An attempt to mock?
    Not me, you are being careless of clear words of Quran.

    No, what I do is, I explain ahadith with Quran. I don't take stoning from Ahadith. I understand from Quran, that the a possible punishment is taqteel and see it varified by the Prophet in his ahadith. I am consistent with my usool.

    Of course I wouldn't have known that so clearly, that adultery after marriage is also fasad fil ard, if the Prophet had not combined the punishments of 24:2 and 5:33. In that sense, I am taking ahadith for explaining Quran. But In no way, have I imposed any meaning to the verses of Quran, which was not inherently there in its words. Where do you see word unmarried in 24:2 for example? I see word taqteel in 5:33 and see the Prophet explaining it with his words and actions. Where is your problem?

    I have no problem in tabiyyin of Quran with Ahadith. But Quran's words should accept that as tabiyyin. What you are suggesting is simply rejected by the words of Quran.

    Here it is not clear whether you are giving your own opinion or putting words in my mouth as a mockery. I have not said, that the adultery of an unmarried automatically becomes fasad fil ard, unless it is rape or prostitution.

    Again a misrepresentation of my opinion. Adultery always falls under 24:2 and fasad fil ard always falls under 5:33.

    Because the nature of crime of a married adulterer is two-fold. Adultery is always punished by Q24:2, married or unmarried and Fasad fil ard is always punished by Q5:33, again married or unmarried. The exact placement on the full scale available in Q5:33 is of course taken from Ahadith. This is tabiyyin of Quran. You are not talking with a munkir-i-hadith.

    Not me. Allah's Prophet has received Wahi and it was his sole duty to do its tabiyyin for us. And for your information an unmarried who commits rape also falls under Q5:33 and also Q24:2. Again a misrepresentation and I hope not deliberate on your part.

    First, again you are not talking to a munkir-i-hadith. Secondly, I wouldn't have known the mapping over Q5:33, if the Prophet had not explained it by his words and actions. Third, that hadith is talking about some specific women. The Prophet was not talking about a man, who rapes his own daughter at the age of 8. Why I would support cruicifixion for such a man is, because there are several layers of fasad fil ard, which are not existent in case of those women, the Prophet is talking about. Such a man is 1. committing zina after being married. 2. committing incest 3. committing rape, 4. raping a minor child. So the amount of fasad fil ard is much greater than that done by "those" women.

    I am always emphasizing, that the married adulterer falls both under Q24:2 and Q5:33. That the Prophet gave stoning to some people, it is a well established historical fact. Now, I take Quran and analyse that history presented in ahadith and these conclusions to which I come are the natural conclusions.

    The difference in your and my way of accepting ahadith as tabiyyin is, that you are imposing your own meaning on Quran. I am accepting Quran as it is and accepting ahadith as they are.

    I know. But you are willing to accept things as "further explanation" of Quran, which have no basis in the language of Quran.

    Wassalamu alaikum
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2016

Share This Page