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.