cabdixakim
Junior Member
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
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!
Last edited: