Wa'aleykumas'salaam warahmatul'Lahi wabarakatuh What we're discussing is not a father defiling his 8 years old daughter... we're discussing about a married man who with the consent of another woman besides his wife committs adultery; is such a man stoned or not? I said yes and you too said that,didn't you? I said it's so because the Hadd for such a man is only Rajm( because the prophet(p.b.u.h) enforced the command of Allah as such and interpreted further the verses of the Qur'an with clear words)... you said, he's stoned because you think the prophet(p.b.u.h) was enforcing (Q5:33) plus (Q24:2) and that such a man can even be crusified or just be banished from the land depending on the decision of the Judge... A claim which you can only say "please take my word for it" because there is not a gram's weight of evidence you've brought forth so far! And so an unmarried one who committs adultery 5 times as compared to a married one who did it once can too be stoned or crusified? Why not? Why does only the married fall under (Q5:33)? Does the Qur'an say so? No, in fact it gives them both same punishment according to your understanding of (Q24:2)... then where do you take this stoning from? From those ahadith? Do the ahadith offer or even indicate the options of (Q5:33)? Why was this fact of crusifying a married adulterer who did it in consent with a woman hidden from the prophet(p.b.u.h), the Khulfaa ur'rashiduun, the Tabi'iin, Tabi,u tabi'in? why is this only lately realised by You and Ghamidi_the Deen reviving people of logic? Why did the muslims( more intellectual and religious and more in line with the language of Qur'an than any of you) all agreed that Rajm is a fixed punishment? They all show hadiths and historical incidents; why would I then buy your 4 self-invented postules that is blinding you? And what is this Tabiyyin you talk about? Do you not mean Tabyiin= تبيين? Does it not mean elaboration,further explanation and making clear? Does the Prophet(p.b.u.h) not elaborate,further explain and make clear of what's in the Qur'an? Is hadith not defined as his words and actions? I'm telling you that there is no intrusion in the Qur'an from my point of view... and you glue me with guilt of doing so because of what? Because of my different understanding of the same Rajm incidents? Did I say that the Qur'an lacks something and we cannot take it as it is and so let's add this and that? NO. You seem to be lacking a simple teaching that unless you deliberate and believe the permissiblity of a forbidden thing you are simply a sinner and not a disbeliever( this happens had I was wrong and you were right which is far from the seen truth of the moment) ... Even so, what I believe of my opinion is always leaning on a hadith or Sunnah mutawattir or the understanding of early muslims but you on the other hand; Your argument is based on Aql, you hardly said in all your posts; "the prophet(p.b.u.h) said..." or "Allah(SWT) said..." in fact you only negated whatever I quoted of "The prophet(p.b.u.h) said..." All you have is dry solid (Q5:33) and (Q24:2) with only your overconfident never erring Deen-reviving logic and you want to crusify married adulterers and cut off their alternating arms and legs... No brother,you don't have to warn me I feel safe here! I see demanding evidence and logic here!