Stoning ACTUALLY an Islamic punishment?

[SilverFox]

Salam.

I've heard a few objections to the claim that stoning is an Islamic punishment. However, fairly recently, I've come across new information that provides some answers to these objections:
islamic-replies.ucoz.com/2/Refute_Stoning_Adultery.html

What do you think?

[shaad_lko]

Salam.

I've heard a few objections to the claim that stoning is an Islamic punishment. However, fairly recently, I've come across new information that provides some answers to these objections:
islamic-replies.ucoz.com/2/Refute_Stoning_Adultery.html

What do you think?

well, the fact that it is not in the Quran automatically puts the law into question. Secondly, even those who claim that it is an Islamic law, would admit that the original law of stoning adulterers is found in the Torah, so the essential argument is that the laws of Bani Israil would continue to be operative in this ummah unless explicitly repealed.

Thirdly, to prove an accusation of adultery is extremely tough in an Islamic court of law, since it requires 4 witnesses, which practically means that only one committing it on the street can be convicted (of course, I am not saying that the law has not been misused in Muslim societies).

Finally, even if the Hadith is deemed authentic, law does not function on the basis of standalone hadith. So, it all boils down to methodology to determine what should be law in an Islamic society. Imho, the punishment for stoning is for those who are spreading corruption in the land which would include prostitutes and pimps. Reg. the article, I dont think its anything but regurgitated arguments - we have already discussed this a zillion times on the forum itself..

[johan]

Salam.

I've heard a few objections to the claim that stoning is an Islamic punishment. However, fairly recently, I've come across new information that provides some answers to these objections:
islamic-replies.ucoz.com/2/Refute_Stoning_Adultery.html

What do you think?

It seems that there are 2 different ways between the Quran and the alleged sunnah..
Though, the notion that there would be a difference in the call of the prophet (alleged sunnah of the prophet) and the call of Allah SWT(Quran) would just mean that between the two there exist a divide.
That is definitely against a lot of similar verses of the Quran:

[48:13] Sahih International
And whoever has not believed in Allah and His Messenger - then indeed, We have prepared for the disbelievers a Blaze.
[2:285] Sahih International
The Messenger has believed in what was revealed to him from his Lord, and [so have] the believers. All of them have believed in Allah and His angels and His books and His messengers, [saying], "We make no distinction between any of His messengers." And they say, "We hear and we obey. [We seek] Your forgiveness, our Lord, and to You is the [final] destination."
[4:150] Sahih International
Indeed, those who disbelieve in Allah and His messengers and wish to discriminate between Allah and His messengers and say, "We believe in some and disbelieve in others," and wish to adopt a way in between -

Do we divide between the message and the Source of the message?
Do we divide between the message and the messenger, assuming that the messenger is truthful?
What is the message? Wouldn't it be the Qur'an that is indexed; and for a reason? Or is it the alleged sunnah of the prophet that is most often a blurry recollection; and for a reason?
And that points us towards a problem; Is the sunnah of the prophet part of the dzikr that is guaranteed to be ever lasting?

[15:9]
Indeed, it is We who sent down the Dzikr(Qur'an) and indeed, We will be its guardian.

I noticed a big difference in the theme of the two:
The main idea is that, the Quran is trying to do away with practices that are immoral and inhuman in a mature/civilized/least obtrusive way. One that would look at humanity as a race that is able to comprehend the creation of Allah SWT. Many verses leaves the harshness of the judgements to the hereafter, rather than the here.

The alleged sunnah on the other hand views human as ill behaved, rebellious(non-conforming), immature, ill-witted race that could only be manageable via harshness unto themselves in this life in addition to the hereafter. (I supposed that's why Allah SWT had made a conditional on the jews to kill themselves if they are truly a believer)

[4:66] Sahih International
And if We had decreed upon them, "Kill yourselves" or "Leave your homes," they would not have done it, except for a few of them. But if they had done what they were instructed, it would have been better for them and a firmer position [for them in faith].

I would guess that psychologically..
the quranic approach would be more successful to trigger the humans instinct of weariness and alertness of the future event..yet is flexible and comforting in the current event..
while the alleged sunnah approach would trigger a behavior of excessive resistance on the seeker and observer to the religion.

As for the claim that The Quran doesn't condemn the stoning action, just look at how the stoning action is always associated to those who are against the believers. You will not find a single stoning that the believer ever did that is recollected in the Quran.
So one would argue if the stoning action could ever possibly be Islamic.

wallahua3lam

[shaad_lko]

could you clarify what you mean by the alleged Sunna ?

[johan]

could you clarify what you mean by the alleged Sunna ?

Alleged sunna is the sunni and the shi3y version of hadith..

[Al-Boriqi]

well, the fact that it is not in the Quran automatically puts the law into question.

only for someone who does not have faith. Why?

If one understands the context of Allah pressuring the disbelievers to utilize their rational thought and to use their reasoning to come to the logical conclusion that
1. What Allah says in the Qur'an is true
2. Which means that Muhammad is a Messenger of Allah
3. and therefore he is to be taken as a guide and followed in his decisions, whether Allah Himself co-signed it or not. That is because Allah has already co-signed his authority through the very act of commisioning him as a Messenger, encharging him with the law (revelation) and guiding the people in how to apply that law (sunnah)

That is the dawah of Allah to the kuffar. Once a kaafir orientates himself in the submission and belief in these three, they become a Muslim through the oath of faith. Once that takes place, then post-acceptance of Islam negates the prior properties of "investigating the truth and veractiy about what Muhammad said", for such a methodology remains a customary practice for the disbelievers to practice. It is not the intellectual property of faith to perform this methodology rather it is a characteristic inherent in people who have no faith in la illaha illallaah Muhammada rasulullah.
This is why revisionism found in todays modernist thinking, secularists, progressives, and the tarkul-hadeeth movement in its very ideology is an ideology if disbelief antithetical to the roots of Islamic faith. This explains why the belief of adherents to this disbelief are not synonymous to the beliefs of the billion some odd Muslims world wide, no matter what jurisprudential or theological school they follow.

Thus your statement is not befitting someone who professes to have emaan.

It is analogous to someone saying for example "I worship Allah only" and then bows down to an idol afterward.
just food for thought

[shaad_lko]

Salaam,

Once that takes place, then post-acceptance of Islam negates the prior properties of "investigating the truth and veractiy about what Muhammad said", for such a methodology remains a customary practice for the disbelievers to practice. It is not the intellectual property of faith to perform this methodology rather it is a characteristic inherent in people who have no faith in la illaha illallaah Muhammada rasulullah.

investigating the truth becomes a property of the kuffar - that's interesting. What would you say to the scholars of Hadith themselves..

This is why revisionism found in todays modernist thinking, secularists, progressives, and the tarkul-hadeeth movement in its very ideology is an ideology if disbelief antithetical to the roots of Islamic faith. This explains why the belief of adherents to this disbelief are not synonymous to the beliefs of the billion some odd Muslims world wide, no matter what jurisprudential or theological school they follow.

If you mean utilizing logical positivism in the field of Deen, then I agree this is an alien methodology to that of Islam. Beyond that, I wouldnt rely too much on terminology since, for example, Islam itself is progressive.

[johan]

only for someone who does not have faith. Why?

If one understands the context of Allah pressuring the disbelievers to utilize their rational thought and to use their reasoning to come to the logical conclusion that
1. What Allah says in the Qur'an is true
2. Which means that Muhammad is a Messenger of Allah
3. and therefore he is to be taken as a guide and followed in his decisions, whether Allah Himself co-signed it or not. That is because Allah has already co-signed his authority through the very act of commisioning him as a Messenger, encharging him with the law (revelation) and guiding the people in how to apply that law (sunnah)

I totally agree..

That is the dawah of Allah to the kuffar. Once a kaafir orientates himself in the submission and belief in these three, they become a Muslim through the oath of faith. Once that takes place, then post-acceptance of Islam negates the prior properties of "investigating the truth and veractiy about what Muhammad said", for such a methodology remains a customary practice for the disbelievers to practice. It is not the intellectual property of faith to perform this methodology rather it is a characteristic inherent in people who have no faith in la illaha illallaah Muhammada rasulullah.

This is where we disagree..
1. It contradicts this verse:

[2:62] Sahih International
Indeed, those who believed and those who were Jews or Christians or Sabeans [before Prophet Muhammad] - those [among them] who believed in Allah and the Last Day and did righteousness - will have their reward with their Lord, and no fear will there be concerning them, nor will they grieve.

Allah has lifted fear and grieve from those who aren't even categorized as mu'min, why do you put fear in them by not categorizing them as muslim?
IMHO, a Jew or Christian or Sabeans can be categorized as Muslim..
but they need more effort to be categorized as Mu'min..
Muslims are those who submitted to the The Creator of All..


2. Can you show me which verse are your principles derived from?
I can show you where mine is:

[22:8] Sahih International
And of the people is he who disputes about Allah without knowledge or guidance or an enlightening book [from Him],

My interpretation of Knowledge is that it comes from experimental sciences..
Guidance comes from a spiritual endeavor..
Enlightening book is what Holy books are..

Where does Hadith come from?
Let me tell you where it comes from:

[2:170] Sahih International
And when it is said to them, "Follow what Allah has revealed," they say, "Rather, we will follow that which we found our fathers doing." Even though their fathers understood nothing, nor were they guided?

This is why revisionism found in todays modernist thinking, secularists, progressives, and the tarkul-hadeeth movement in its very ideology is an ideology if disbelief antithetical to the roots of Islamic faith. This explains why the belief of adherents to this disbelief are not synonymous to the beliefs of the billion some odd Muslims world wide, no matter what jurisprudential or theological school they follow.

You know one should look at the state of ummah right now and compares it to the leaders of the world, and ponder why the leaders of the world aren't those who call themselves "mu'min" in their mouth to the public..
I would say that the ummah has lost the authroity(sulthon)..this is evident in this verse:

[55:33] Sahih International
O company of jinn and mankind, if you are able to pass beyond the regions of the heavens and the earth, then pass. You will not pass except by authority [from Allah].

This is a big sign, if you were a believer..

Thus your statement is not befitting someone who professes to have emaan.

It is analogous to someone saying for example "I worship Allah only" and then bows down to an idol afterward.
just food for thought

Ones ego could probably be the idol that you talk about..?

Wallahua3lam

[Al-Boriqi]

Salaam,

investigating the truth becomes a property of the kuffar - that's interesting. What would you say to the scholars of Hadith themselves..

apples and oranges.

the muhaditheen examine the veracity of individual reports BASED on specific methods and issues. They are not "investigating" the veracity of the message itself, unlike the investigations of the kuffar. There is no investigation to the truth if you have already submitted to it.




while I recommend that you here the entire thing, the context of my speech here is explained more vividly when he receives a question on blind faith on 57 minutes and 41 seconds

If you mean utilizing logical positivism in the field of Deen, then I agree this is an alien methodology to that of Islam. Beyond that, I wouldnt rely too much on terminology since, for example, Islam itself is progressive.

Again, apples and oranges.

Islam, just like everything else, has
1. constants
2. variables

Its progressive features are found exclusively in its variables and are not found in its constants.

In contrast to this, the methodological framework of revisionist ideologies is to encapsulate the features of the variables into the constants, which thus ensures anyone adhering to this methodology to even alter the principles of the religion (i.e. the constants).

So Islam's natural element of progression differs astronomically in comparison with the modern concept of progressivism.

[Al-Boriqi]

I totally agree..

wal-hamdulillah, thats a start

This is where we disagree..
1. It contradicts this verse:

Allah has lifted fear and grieve from those who aren't even categorized as mu'min, why do you put fear in them by not categorizing them as muslim?
IMHO, a Jew or Christian or Sabeans can be categorized as Muslim..
but they need more effort to be categorized as Mu'min..
Muslims are those who submitted to the The Creator of All..

there is no contradiction if you've received qualified education.

Allah, the Messenger, the companions of Muhammad, their students, and the ummah of Muhammad who followed them have understood that the ayaa was in reference to those who have not come across the message of Islam and is not applicable to those who came across the message of Islam. This is tied in to another ayaah where after Allah changed the qiblah for the believrs from Baitul-Maqdis (Jerusalem) to the K'aba (in Makkah), the Muslims were scared of loosing their previous deeds and so Allah revealed that none of their faith will be lost due to the new command and them not knowing of the command until it came to them. So Allah does not cause a people's dedication to the truth to be lost in the absense of knowledge of His ordainments or of revelation.

Secondly, from a theological standpoint, this verse is further inapplicable to the format you are employing it because if it was unrestricted and undefined as you have understood, then what is the purpose of being Muslim. This then deregulates Allah's command to every human on earth to become Muslim to only be a "recommendation" and not an obligation. The very same Lord who revealed this ayaah you provide also revealed another ayaah that was revealed later who said

“And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers” [Aal ‘Imraan 3:85]

Qaadhi 'Iyyaad said in commenting on the aayah

hence we regard as a kaafir everyone who follows a religion other than the religion of the Muslims, or who agrees with them, or who has doubts, or who says that their way is correct, even if he appears to be a Muslim and believes in Islam and that every other way is false, he is a kaafir

(Al-Shifaa’ bi Ta’reef Huqooq al-Mustafaa, 2/1071)

2. Can you show me which verse are your principles derived from?

the entire book. I don't understand one verse in isolation of the rest of the book. Doing so cripples a person's understanding. Likewise my principles are derived from the sunnah of Muhammad, the way that sunnah was practiced and understood by the companions, and how they taught their students. When I follow this particular methodology, then and only then am I able to say exactly what Imaam ash-Shaafi'ee said
"I understand the words of Allah based on the intent of Allah"

There is a difference between boasting with arrogance, and a simple fact of yaqeen (certitude) which is required by emaan. Understanding the two, and how they differ, will ensure accuracy in judgment.

I can show you where mine is:

people's metodologies reveals the actuality of their positions and understanding far greater than words ever could.

My interpretation of Knowledge is that it comes from experimental sciences..

However revelational knowledge is not based on empiracy. Allah's speech is found in the Qur'an, in fact the entire Qur'an is His speech. All speech is either
1. logical
2. empirical
3. legislative

All three forms are shown in the Qur'an with less emphasis on emiracy only because of what use is a human going to examine the veracity of the words of Allah. Knowledge comes from Allah Subhaanahu, He is the source from which all knowledge is known and He gives to whom He pleases.

Guidance comes from a spiritual endeavor..

thats understandable

Enlightening book is what Holy books are..

that is true in general terms, but that has nothing to do with the ayaah you quoted in question.

Where does Hadith come from?
Let me tell you where it comes from:

oh boy.

And when it is said to them, "Follow what Allah has revealed," they say, "Rather, we will follow that which we found our fathers doing." Even though their fathers understood nothing, nor were they guided?

that is one of the most abhorent rapes I have ever encountered someone doing to the ayaat of Allah.

You know one should look at the state of ummah right now and compares it to the leaders of the world, and ponder why the leaders of the world aren't those who call themselves "mu'min" in their mouth to the public..

as a matter of fact, most of them do call themselves believers or Muslims. Of course, that testimony is negated if they are secularists, or ruling by completely foreign man made legislations in opposition to the shariah of Allah, or who contraven the shariah with modernist methodologies.

I would say that the ummah has lost the authroity(sulthon)..this is evident in this verse:

This is a big sign, if you were a believer..

a more befitting ayaah would be


وَقَالَ لَهُمْ نَبِيُّهُمْ إِنَّ اللّهَ قَدْ بَعَثَ لَكُمْ طَالُوتَ مَلِكًا قَالُوَاْ أَنَّى يَكُونُ لَهُ الْمُلْكُ عَلَيْنَا وَنَحْنُ أَحَقُّ بِالْمُلْكِ مِنْهُ وَلَمْ يُؤْتَ سَعَةً مِّنَ الْمَالِ قَالَ إِنَّ اللّهَ اصْطَفَاهُ عَلَيْكُمْ وَزَادَهُ بَسْطَةً فِي الْعِلْمِ وَالْجِسْمِ وَاللّهُ يُؤْتِي مُلْكَهُ مَن يَشَاء وَاللّهُ وَاسِعٌ عَلِيمٌ
And their Prophet (Samuel) said to them, "Indeed Allah has appointed Talut (Saul) as a king over you." They said, "How can he be a king over us when we are better fitted than him for the kingdom, and he has not been given enough wealth." He said: "Verily, Allah has chosen him above you and has increased him abundantly in knowledge and stature. And Allah grants His Kingdom to whom He wills. And Allah is All- Sufficient for His creatures' needs, All-Knower."

the ummah lost its authority when they made the authority of Muhammad to become lost within themselves. You will notice that this coincidentally coincides with the uprising of revisionist ideologies like modernism, secualrism, progresivism, and the tarkul-hadeeth movements.

Ones ego could probably be the idol that you talk about..?

Wallahua3lam

yes, when ALlah said

"have you not seen him who takes his own desires as an illah"

sanctimoneousness is a bad character trait. part of it is caused due to rejection of the truth when it comes to them, may Allah guide us to His straight path

[shaad_lko]

apples and oranges.

the muhaditheen examine the veracity of individual reports BASED on specific methods and issues. They are not "investigating" the veracity of the message itself, unlike the investigations of the kuffar. There is no investigation to the truth if you have already submitted to it.




while I recommend that you here the entire thing, the context of my speech here is explained more vividly when he receives a question on blind faith on 57 minutes and 41 seconds

question here is not about disbelieving in the Book but in a particular historical interpretation. On what basis do you imply that the science of Hadith has been closed forever ?

[Al-Boriqi]

question here is not about disbelieving in the Book but in a particular historical interpretation. On what basis do you imply that the science of Hadith has been closed forever ?

1. I never said science of hadeeth has been closed forever nor was this the subject of contention.

2. Speech was never stated by me about disbelieving in the book. It was about the questioning the veracity of Muhammad, and that takes place through the nullifying of Muhammad as being authoritative OR by insinuating that the truth of his mission has been lost OR comprimised due to the narrators of hadeeth OR by viewing the scriptures of Islam known as ahahdeeth as merely "apocryphal" in nature at best. All of these diminishing aspects of ahadeeth is the direct application of kufr of Muhammada Rasulullah. One modernist was so engulfed in the asinineness of his own way that he negated "Muhammada Rasulullah" from the shahaada itself. What greater kufr is there than this.

So my speech has been, has always been, and will most likely continue to be geared towards the peculiar forms of negations of the Sunnah that takes place here on the forum and by particular members.

3. What historical interpretation. We are speaking about the very core of what it means to even be a Muslim AS IS DEFINED BY ALLAH. Allah has negated faith in absolute form for anyone and then He adds the exception by stating "until they make Allah and His Messenger" (notice how Allah, while having no partners, adds Muhammad to having equal share in the judgment) the criterion for judgment and take their decisions with full submission.

Secondly, Allah's command is everlasting for the Muslims. The ayaah is not simply for the companions, otherwise what is the value of a book only usable to a particular generation. Furthermore, if Allah issues a command, then by due right of His Divine perfection, His command can only be of the category of those things that we as human servants CAN and possess the ability to perform. Otherwise, holding the opposite view would entail blasphemy for charging Allah with imperfection and "oppression" because oppression is defined as obligating something beyond what that thing can bear.

Since Allah commands us with resorting to Muhammad for judgment while this command extends as well to us in our day in age 14 centuries later, then by default Allah has protected and provided the real, tangible, and viable sunnah for us to follow 14 centuries later which its only abode is in the ahadeeth literature. Therefore the argument of the tarkul-hadeeth movement is an argument of sophistry and baffoonery from any angle you look at it, which is that since we don't know and can't really know the veracty of these ahadeth, we might as well just leave them alone, thus negating their "Muhammada Rasulullah".

what I am bringing and what I have been bringing is irrelevant to the issue of "a particular interpretation". Yes, technically speaking anything can be identified as an interpretation, but as far as Islam is concerned, what I am bringing is THE interpretation, the one and only. I say that not out of any feeling of granduer, boastfulness, or any other forms of santification, Im saying this based on the logical facts that alternative understandings ALWAYS entails some form of corruption in heresy or lands someone to kufr of some sort.

The basic gist of what I have been stating here is agreed upon by virtually every Muslim sect known to existence, save of course the revisionist camp.

worrying about a "particular interpretation" comes with something like me and you arguing about what "maitah" i.e. dead meats are.

The way of Allah is one way, just as Allah Subhaanahu says "Hold on to the rope of Allah", He did not say "ropes" in plural form.
The Messenger alayhi salatu salam said
"I have left you upon clear guidance, its night is like its day, none of you deviate from it except that he is destroyed"

likewise he said
"Every possible avenue to enter jannah is what I have informed you about, and every possible way of entering the fire is what I have informed you about".

asalamu alaykum

[shaad_lko]

This thread is about stoning as an Islamic punishment - are you insinuating that to deny it is to deny the Sunna or at the minimum is your assertion that to deny the punishment of stoning a form of Hadith-denial ?

If that is the case, then you need to establish your argument rather than jumping the gun.. otherwise, we already have discussed several times the obligation of the Sunna besides numerous attempts at understanding the meaning of the word Sunna itself.

[Al-Boriqi]

This thread is about stoning as an Islamic punishment - are you insinuating that to deny it is to deny the Sunna or at the minimum is your assertion that to deny the punishment of stoning a form of Hadith-denial ?

If that is the case, then you need to establish your argument rather than jumping the gun.. otherwise, we already have discussed several times the obligation of the Sunna besides numerous attempts at understanding the meaning of the word Sunna itself.

1. Yes, denying a single aspect of the sunnah constitutes denial of the sunnah much like believing in some of the book and disbelieving in other parts constitutes disbelief in the book altogether.

The is NO Islamic reason for denying the sunnah of any of the established hudood, rather the only reasons existent in the world today are shaytaanic, not Islamic.

2. Establishing the argument that qatl al-murtadd is Islamic. Sure
It is plastered all over Islam and the Sunnah like every other defining feature. There are multiple reports in Bukharee, Muslim, and virtually every other haeeth book in existence.

3. As I stated above, the fact still remains that the categorical disqualifications of ahadeeth on the following assumptions

a. nullifying of Muhammad as being authoritative
b. by insinuating that the truth of his mission has been lost OR comprimized due to the narrators of hadeeth
c. by viewing the scriptures of Islam known as ahahdeeth as merely "apocryphal" in nature at best.

all constitute the negation of muhammada rasulullah despite affirmation of obligation of the sunnah.

One of the aspects of heresy that the group known as Hizbu-Tahreer are known by is their denial of the not so widely reported ahadeeth on the dajjaal. By this denial of theirs alone, if it were not accompanied by other forms of kufr and heresy, is enough to charge them with kufr and heresy and among the sects of the hellfire. So how about the denial of qatlu-murtadd in Islam, something that is more than super duper mutawattir in Islam, the bona fide application of the sunnah of the Messenger of Allah on multiple accounts by which made every companions likewise act the same, and every other Muslim on the face of the earth the same for the next milenia and some centuries.

The denial of this as such would be of greater magnitude in kufr than the denial of the tahreeri movement.

4. lastly, the reason why the conversation transcended the mere aspect of the law itself is because as far as the forum is concerned, you have not expressed The islamic framework for accepting or rejecting reports, but rather your contention is based on the contention of the disbelievers which by default transfers the focus of the discussion from its subsidery realm to one of fundamentals and the correction of fundamentals entails the correction of its subsidery issues.

Until you are convinced and put your emaan in the Muslim paradigm of reviewing the Qur'an and Sunnah, then reviewing the practices of Islam, as expressed in the law, has no real value in and of itself whatsoever.

In short, the back bone of the matter is one of eman and kufr, doctrine if you will. Once emaan is corrected, all else that rest upon eman will syncronously harmonize with eman by default.

asalamu alaykum

[shaad_lko]

besides the fact that the thread is about adultery, and not hadd for the murtad, even the latter cannot really be termed as "plastered all over Islam" - you must be aware that even traditional scholars deem treachery as one of the reasons for it (and not disavowal of faith as understood in the modern Western sense).

I would say primarily it is an issue of :
a) Understanding the context of different dimensions of the Din like the hudud, the ratio and proportion of different deeds and sunan.
b) Denial of an action as being part of the Sunna is different from denying the authority of the Sunna - in the latter, one is negating Muhammdur RasulAllah as you rightly pointed out. However, the former is an act of discursive debate wherein even scholars of the umma have indulged in.