Refuting The Argument That Stoning Adulterers Isn't Part Of Islam
There are some modernist Muslims that argue that stoning adulterers isn't part of Islam, even though authentic Hadiths, the consensus of scholars, muhaddiths & mushtahids affirm this. In other words, they reject these Hadiths relating to stoning as inauthentic. This reminds us of a following saying of the Prophet:
"Narrated Al Miqdaam: The Messenger of Allah peace be upon him said: I have been given the Quran and that which is similar to it. Yet, there will come a time when a man will be leaning on his couch saying: 'Follow only the Quran: what it says is halal, we take as halal, and what it says is haram, we take as haram.' But listen! Whatever the Messenger of Allah forbids is like what Allah forbids." (Sahih Jami - Declared Sahih By Sheikh Albani - Source & here & Declared Sahih By Imam Ad-Dhababi - Source & Sahih Hasan By Ibn Hajar - Source. Also In Sunan Abu Dawud, #4604 [slightly different wording] - Declared Sahih By Abu Dawud - Source).
This Hadith is also in Ibn Maajah, declared as sahih by Shiekh Albani (Source), and another one in Tirmidhi declared as sahih by the same scholar, (Source) and in Abu Dawud graded as sahih by the same scholar (Source), all will slightly different wordings. So, the Holy Prophet even predicted people would abandon hadiths, and we find modernists Muslims doing exactly that. Let us analyse the claims given by such people, and see if it proves stoning isn't part of Islam:
Allegation 1 - Halving The Punishment Of Adultery:
We read the following verse:
Surah Nisa 4:25:
"If any of you have not the means wherewith to wed free believing women, they may wed believing girls from among those whom your right hands possess: And Allah hath full knowledge about your faith. Ye are one from another: Wed them with the leave of their owners, and give them their dowers, according to what is reasonable: They should be chaste, not lustful, nor taking paramours: when they are taken in wedlock, if they fall into shame, their punishment is half that for free women. This (permission) is for those among you who fear sin; but it is better for you that ye practise self-restraint. And Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful."
So, they claim that the verse says half the punishment of a free woman adulterer would be given to 'whom your right hands possess' (captives or slaves). They then claim that if stoning to death is the punishment for adultery in Islam, how can you half the death penalty? Therefore, they conclude by claiming that Surah Nur 24:2 offers 100 lashes for adulterer, so 50 lashes for captives/slaves should be given, indicating stoning the adulterer is not part of Islam.
Firstly, the verse does not give half the punishment of a free woman adulterer. The word "adulterer" isn't there in the Arabic text. The Arabic word used here is "bifahishatin" (بفاحشة
(*) which doesn't specifically mean adultery, it means:
Sakhr Dictionary - 2006/2007:
"obscene, ribald, dirty, foul, ******, vulgar, indecent, bawdy, shameless, lewd."
Babylon Dictionary:
"lewdness, misconduct, obscenity, ****, pornography."
Google Dictionary:
"Immortality."
So we see it doesn't specifically refer or mean adultery. The meaning of the word can refer to any type of immorality. Since stoning to death cannot be halved, the 4 great scholars agree that this word here must refer to premarital sex when referring to free women, but refers to the slave/captive who commits premarital sex & adultery. In other words, the captive/slave who commits premarital sex & adultery gets half the punishment that the free woman would get, if the free woman had committed premarital sex. This indicates that the punishment for the free woman adulterers would be different than free woman who commit premarital sex.
Ibn Kathir's Tafsir - Surah Nisa 4:25:
"(their punishment is half of that for free (unmarried) women.) indicates that the type of punishment prescribed here is the one that can be reduced to half, lashes in this case, not stoning to death, and Allah knows best."
Maulana Muhammad Taqi Usmani - Ma'ariful Quran - Volume 2 - Page 395:
"As for the married man and woman committing zina (adultery), the punishment is rajm which is death by stoning. Since this particular punishment cannot be reduced to half, all four Imams agree on the position that the punishment of zina committed by a bondman of bondwoman, married or unmarried, is fifty lashes."
Maududi's Commentary - Surah Nisa 4:25:
"This also explains that the punishment for unlawful sexual intercourse (zina) laid down in Surah al-Nur 24: 2 refers to the offence committed by unmarried free women alone, and it is in comparison with their punishment that the punishment of married slave women has been laid down as half."
Muhsin Khan Footnote - Surah Nisa 4:25:
"Female or male slaves (married or unmarried); if they commit illegal sexual intercourse, their punishment is fifty (50) lashes (half of that which is for free unmarried women); neither stoning to death nor exile."
"It goes without saying that this represents the measurable penalty that can be halved, i.e. flogging. It does not apply to the penalty of stoning which cannot be divided. Hence, if a married believing slave commits adultery, she is given half the punishment of an unmarried free woman. If the slave who commits fornication is unmarried, her penalty is subject to different views among scholars. Some are of the opinion that it is the same, i.e. half the penalty of an unmarried free woman, and that the Imam or ruler administers it. Others are of the view that it is a reduced punishment, administered by her master. These views are argued in books of jurisprudence." (Sayyid Qutb - In The Shade Of The Qur'an - The Islamic Foundation - Volume 3 - Page 85).
Also, Imam Qurtubi's tafsir & Baghawi's tafsir states it is 50 lashes. Moreover, a scholar commentating on Surah Nisa 4:25:
"It should be borne in mind that almost all the English translators of the Holy Qur'an have translated the word al-Muhsanat as free married women, and on the basis of this translation have jumped to the conclusion that stoning to death is not prescribed in Islam. The Khwarij also hold the same view. They argue that if the prescribed punishment for the married women is stoning to death, then how is it possible to award half the punishment to the married slave-women as it is stated in the above mentioned verse of the Qur'an, that the slave-women are liable to half the punishment. These translators and exponents of the Qur'an fail to realize that the word Muhsanat does not always mean married women. It sometimes implies the free married women and sometimes it stands for the women who are given the protection of a family. Here in the above mentioned verse the word Muhsanat has been used in the second sense." (Commentary Of: Sahih Muslim, Book 17, Number 4221 - Abdul Hamid Siddiqi's Commentary - Dar Al Arabia - Volume 3 - Chapter DCLXXXIII - Footnote 2178 - Page 921).
Additionally, the Arabic "Muhsanat" used in Surah Nisa 4:25 (*) comes from the root "hasana" which means:
Lane's Lexicon - Volume 2 - Pages 222-223:
"To be guarded, be inaccessible, be chaste, be strongly fortified, be preserved, be protected."
This would be referring to the unmarried person, which in context would mean the punishment for the slaves/captives for committing adultery or pre martial sex is half of the unmarried woman. The punishment for the unmarried woman is 100 lashes (Surah Nur 24:2), so half of that would be 50 for captives/slaves. This leaves no question of not being able to half the punishment for married adulterers.
Allegation 2 - Adulterer's Can't Marry, If The Punishment Is Stoning:
This allegation stems from the following verse:
Surah Nur 24:3:
"Let no man guilty of adultery or fornication marry and but a woman similarly guilty, or an Unbeliever: nor let any but such a man or an Unbeliever marry such a woman: to the Believers such a thing is forbidden."
So the argument is that if married adulterers are to be stoned to death, how can the Quran then say that adulterers can only marry adulterers/unbelievers? Once your stoned to death, you cannot marry. But if the punishment is 100 lashes for married adulterers, then they can marry fornicators/unbelievers. Therefore, stoning married adulterers isn't part of Islam.
Firstly, the Arabic words used in the above verse is "zani" and "zaniyatan" (*,*) which means:
Lanes Lexicon - Volume 3 - Page 426:
"to mount, the mounting upon a thing, to commit fornication/adultery, fornicator/adulterer."
Sakhr Dictionary - 2006/2007:
"adulteress, *****, harlot, prostitute."
Websters Dictionary:
"(prostitute, adulteress, strumpet, incestuous), فاجرة (adulteress, harlot, prostitute, *****, unchaste woman), زانِيَة (adulteress, prostitute, strumpet, adulteresses, *****), فاجِرَة (adulteress, harlot, adulteresses, *****, bitched), قَحْبَة (harlot, adulteress, adulteresses, *****, bitched), بِنْتُ الهَوَى (adulteress, adulteresses, *****, bitched, bitches), مُومِسَة (adulteress, adulteresses, *****, bitched, bitches), بَغِيّ (harlot, adulteress, adulteresses, *****, bitched), مُومِس (*****, harlot, moll, prostitute, strumpet), زانيات (adulteress, adulterous)."
Alexadria Dictionary:
"adulteress, fornicatress, hussy, jade, loose woman, slut, strumpet, trollop."
Babylon Dictionary:
"adulterer, corespondent, prostitute, strumpet [sl.], hooker [sl.], adulteress."
WordReference Dictionary:
"scrubber, hussy, adulteress."
Dicts Dictionary:
"prostitute ; cocotte ; ***** ; harlot ; bawd ; tart ; cyprian ; fancy woman ; working girl ; sporting lady ; lady of pleasure ; woman of the street."
Verbace Dictionary:
"*****, adulteress, prostitute."
So, this verse doesn't single out the meaning to a particular meaning. In light of the following Hadiths, the above verse when referring to Muslims, refers to unmarried adulterers (a Muslim who commits pre martial sex).
Abu Dawud, Book 11, Number 2047:
"Narrated AbuHurayrah: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: The adulterer who has been flogged shall not marry save the one like him. AbuMa'mar said: Habib al-Mu'allim narrated (this tradition) to us on the authority of Amr ibn Shu'ayb." (Declared as sahih by Sheikh Albani - Source).
This Hadith is also in Musnad Ahmad & has been declared by Muhammad Ibn Abdul-Hadi as having a good chain (Source) & by Sheikh Arna'oot - (Source). Moreover, Ibn Kathir declared this as strong supported Hadith (Ibn Kathir - The Guidance Of Al-Fiqh - 2 /149 - Source), and Imam Hajar stated it's trustworthy (Source). So, this hadith indicates that unmarried adulterers are allowed to get married to pious Muslims, so long as they repent to Allah sincerely (Maulana Muhammad Taqi Usmani - Ma'ariful Quran - Volume 6 - Pages 357-358). Unmarried adulterers would be able to marry, as the punishment for this is 100 lashes.
"Indeed Imam Ahmad is of the view that marriage is forbidden between an adulterer and a chaste woman, or between a chaste man and an adulteress. A prerequisite for such a marriage to be valid is for such offenders to genuinely repent." (Sayyid Qutb - In The Shade Of The Qur'an - The Islamic Foundation - Volume 12 - Page 207).
"This verse, then, implies that a believer is forbidden to marry an adulteress unless she genuinely repents. The same applies to a female believer and an adulterer. This is the view Imam Ahmad took, but other scholars had a different view." (Ibid - Page 208).
When we look at this verse with the historical background, this referred to a man who wanted to marry a prostitute:
Abu Dawud, Book 11, Number 2046:
"Narrated Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-'As: Marthad ibn AbuMarthad al-Ghanawi used to take prisoners (of war) from Mecca (to Medina). At Mecca there was a prostitute called Inaq who had illicit relations with him. (Marthad said
I came to the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and said to him: May I marry Inaq, Apostle of Allah? The narrator said: He kept silence towards me. Then the verse was revealed:"....and the adulteress none shall marry save and adulterer or an idolater." He called me and recited this (verse) to me, and said: Do not marry her." (Declared as sahih hasan by Sheikh Albani - Source).
A similar Hadith is in Sunan al-Tirmidhi & classed as hasan (Source), and in Musnad Ahmad, but it's chain is weak (Source). However, Shikeh Arna'oot declared this narration is Musnad Ahmad is Hasan (Number 6480, Source). Al-Wahidi mentions the similar story in his tafsir. When looking at the verse in the historical background, this would mean it is not suitable for the chaste men and women to marry those who are committing fornication. This is why the Prophet told him not to marry her. Applying the Islamic law and referring this to Muslims, it obviously it doesn't refer to married adulterers, since such people would get stoned. In light of the Hadiths, this wouldn't refer to Muslim married adulterers, which leaves no question of married adulterers not being able to get married. For further discussion, go here.
Allegation 3 - Punishment Cannot Be Doubled:
This allegation by the modernist Muslim is based on:
Surah Ahzab 33:30:
"O Consorts of the Prophet! If any of you were guilty of evident unseemly conduct, the Punishment would be doubled to her, and that is easy for Allah."
The modernist Muslim argues that if the punishment is stoning to death, how can stoning be doubled? Firstly, the verse doesn't even say adultery. The Arabic word used here is "bifahishatin" (بفاحشة
(*) which doesn't specifically mean adultery, as shown above. Secondly, the punishment here isn't refer to a legal punishment which is to be implemented. It is referring to afterlife punishment.
Tabari's tafsir - Surah Ahzab 33:30:
"Punishment would be doubled to her, it means punishment of the Hereafter."
Ibn Kathir's tafsir - Surah Ahzab 33:30:
"(the torment for her will be doubled,) "In this world and the next.'' Something similar was narrated from Ibn Abi Najih, from Mujahid."
Similarly, Imam Qurtubi states the same thing in his tafsir. The modernist Muslim may argue that the above says "in this world" so how can the stoning be doubled? The above seems to imply that double punishment is both stoning in this world and punishment in the next, not doubling in this world then doubling in the hereafter. Even if it did refer to this, doubling the punishment could simply mean punishing in different ways (i.e. a punishment of the grave after stoning). Moreover, on the day of judgment, punishment can be doubled there, so there is no proof that it strictly refers to worldly legal punishment to be implemented. Also, looking at the context prior and after verse 30, the hereafter is mentioned which supports the argument that double punishment would be in the afterlife, if any of the Prophet's wives were guilty of immorality.
Allegation 4 - Muhammad Judged By The Torah?
This allegations stems from:
Sahih Muslim, Book 17, Number 4211:
"Abdullah b. 'Umar reported that a Jew and a Jewess were brought to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) who had committed adultery. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) came to the Jews and said: What do you find in Torah for one who commits adultery? They said: We darken their faces and make them ride on the donkey with their faces turned to the opposite direction (and their backs touching each other), and then they are taken round (the city). He said: Bring Torah if you are truthful. They brought it and recited it until when they came to the verse pertaining to stoning, the person who was reading placed his hand on the verse pertaining to stoning, and read (only that which was) between his hands and what was subsequent to that. Abdullah b. Salim who was at that time with the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Command him (the reciter) to lift his hand. He lifted it and there was, underneath that, the verse pertaining to stoning. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) pronounced judgment about both of them and they were stoned. Abdullah b. 'Umar said: I was one of those who stoned them, and I saw him (the Jew) protecting her (the Jewess) with his body."
This Hadith is also found in Sahih Bukhari. So the modernist Muslim argues as to how could Muhammad judge by the corrupted Torah and not the Quran? Therefore, stoning the adulterer cannot be part of Islam. Firstly, the Prophet stoning the adulterer according to the law of the Torah doesn't mean that he went against the Quran. No-where does the Quran contradict the Torah, regarding the punishment for married adulterers.
This incident is linked with Surah Maidah 5:41-45, and occurred after 6-7 years after the Hjrah (Refer to Ibn Kathir's tafsir - Surah Maidah 5:43 & Maududi's Surah 5 Intro). Stoning became part of Islam before this.
"We can say with certainty that all the incidents of stoning or the majority of them occurred after the verse of 100 lashes was revealed. Surah Nur was revealed in response to the accusation which was leveled against Aishah which took place immediately after the Battle of Banu Mustaliq. The scholars have differed with regard to the date in which this battle took place. Some say it was 3 A.H., others say that it was 5 A.H., and yet others hold the view that it took place in 6 A.H. Musa ibn Uqbah - one of the most knowledgeable scholars regarding wars and battles - says that this battle took place in 5 A.H., shortly before the Battle of Ahzab (confederates).
Hafiz ibn Hajar has also given preference to this view and supported it with many proofs." (Fathul Bari - Vol. 7, Pg. 430 - cited in: Maulana Abdullah Nana - Stoning To Death In Islam - Islamic Da'wah Academy - Page 59 - Source).
Similarly, the most illustrious scholar of Islamic history: Waqidy stated this view is correct (U'mdatul Qari - Vol. 17, Pg. 200-201 - cited in: Maulana Abdullah Nana - Stoning To Death In Islam - Islamic Da'wah Academy - Page 59 - Source), and so did Allamah A'yni.
Commenting on when stonings took place, a major scholar writes:
"The event of 'Aseef, the event of Maiz, the event of Ghamidiyyah and the event of the Jewish couple occurred after the revelation of the verse of Surah-i- Noor which contains the punishment of Ifk hundred stripes. The revelation of this verse took place at the occasion of the event of Ifk which had occurred on the return of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) and his companions from the war of Banu Mustalaq.
This occasion had taken place at all costs before fifth or sixth Hijra as stated by Ibn-i-Hasham, Tabari, Ibn-i-Taymiyyah, Asqalani, 'Ayni, Qustalani and others. But the events of execution of Rajm took place after seventh, eighth and ninth Hijra because those companions who had witnessed the events and had participated in the stoning, accepted Islam and associated themselves with the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) in the seventh, eighth and ninth Hijra. It was only in their presence and with their participation that the execution of Rajm materialized. These facts can be easily studies through the following references:
1. Fath-ul-Bari Vol.XII, p.119.
2.'Umdat-ul-Qari, Vol.XXII, p.291.
3. Irshad-us-Sari, Vol.X, p.9.
4. As-Sarim-ul-Maslool, p.51.
5. Tarikh-ul-Khamees, Vol.II, p.139
6. Mohammod Shihab Kharasoni, Adwar-i-Fiqh Vol.I, p.323." (Prof. Dr. Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri - Legal Character Of Islamic Punishments - Minhaj-ul-Quran Publications - Pages 22-23).
"'Allama Badr-ud-Din 'Aini has clearly states that the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) awarded the punishment of stoning after the revelation of Surah Nur. This Surah was revealed in connection with the incident of Ifk and thus its revelation could not be beyond the sixth year of Hijra. There are, no doubt, other statements which tell us that it was revealed earlier than that, say in the fourth or fifth year of Hijra but none claims it to be revealed after the sixth." (Umdat-ul-Qari - Vol XXIII, p 291 - cited in: Commentary Of: Sahih Muslim, Book 17, Number 4218 - Abdul Hamid Siddiqi's Commentary - Dar Al Arabia - Volume 3 - Chapter DCLXXXIII - Footnote 2177 - Page 920).
So, stoning was already part of Islam before this incident occurred. The reason why the Prophet judged by the law of the Torah is:
Maududi's commentary - Surah Maidah 5:42:
"Until then the Jews had not become full-fledged subjects of the Islamic state. Their relations with that state were based on agreements according to which the Jews were to enjoy internal autonomy, and their disputes were to be decided by their own judges and in accordance with their own laws."
Moreover, Allah gave the prophet a choice to judge between them in:
Surah Maidah 5:42:
"(They are fond of) listening to falsehood, of devouring anything forbidden. If they do come to thee, either judge between them, or decline to interfere. If thou decline, they cannot hurt thee in the least. If thou judge, judge in equity between them. For Allah loveth those who judge in equity."
Verse 43 in historical context confirms that stoning was Allah's command in the original Torah. Although parts of original Torah revealed to Moses had been corrupted, this teaching still remained in there (Levitcus 20:10). We read:
Sahih Muslim, Book 17, Number 4214:
"Thereupon Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: O Allah, I am the first to revive Thy command when they had made it dead. He then commanded and he (the offender) was stoned to death."
The context of the full Hadith refers to the same incident. Muhammad here confirms that Allah's command was made dead by the Jews, indicating stoning was part of the original Torah, and is not abrogated as a teaching of Islam. In a Hadith of Abu Dawud, we read:
Ibn Kathir's tafsir - Surah Maidah 5:43:
"Abu Dawud recorded that Ibn 'Umar said, "Some Jews came to the Messenger of Allah and invited him to go to the Quff area. So he went to the house of Al-Midras and they said, 'O Abu Al-Qasim! A man from us committed adultery with a woman, so decide on their matter.' They arranged a pillow for the Messenger of Allah and he sat on it and said,
(Bring the Tawrah to me.) He was brought the Tawrah and he removed the pillow from under him and placed the Tawrah on it, saying,
(I trust you and He Who revealed it to you.) He then said,
(Bring me your most knowledgeable person.) So he was brought a young man... '' and then he mentioned the rest of the story that Malik narrated from Nafi."
There is a dispute amongst the scholars concerning the authenticity of this Hadith. Sheikh Albani considers this hasan (Source), while others consider it weak (see here & here). Assuming this is hasan, it would refer to the stoning verse as being part of the original Torah. Even if it is a weak hadith, this incident of Muhammad judging the Jews by the Torah doesn't in any way contradict the Quran.
Some may argue that Surah 5:48-49 commands us to judge by what Allah had revealed, yet Muhammad judged by the Torah, in this specific case. However, Muhammad judging the Jews by the Torah here was in actual fact judging by Allah's law, as stoning was part of the original Torah, and Islam confirmed this teaching as not abrogated. See here for more.
Allegation 5: Contradictory Views:
The allegation of contradictory views is given by a modernist Muslim:
"And 'Ali after flogging a woman; who had committed adultery, and then stoning her to death, is reported to have said: 'I have flogged her in obedience to the commandment of the Book of God and have stoned her to death in accordance with the practice of the Holy Prophet' (Bukhari). From these sayings two inferences manifestly emerge: (1) In the matter of punishing an adulterer the practice of the Holy Prophet was at variance with the commandment of God as laid down in the Qur'an, which is impossible. (2) Whereas according to 'Umar there was a commandment in the Book of God about stoning to death of an adulterer, according to 'Ali there was no such commandment, but it was only the practice of the Holy Prophet according to which he ('Ali) stoned to death persons guilty of adultery. These sayings are not only mutually contradictory but demonstrably conflict with the express Divine commandment and therefore must be rejected as pure fabrications or at best distorted versions of what they said." (Source).
Firstly, Muhammad offering stoning to death as a penalty is not contradictory to the Quran. Surah Nur 24:2 refers to the unmarried adulterers only. Commenting on Surah Nur 24:2, we read:
"Such stoning is confirmed in the Sunnah, while flogging is established clearly in the Qur'an. Since the Qur'anic statement is phrased in general terms, and the Prophet inflicted stoning on a married man and a married woman who committed adultery, it is clear that the punishment of flogging applies only to adulterers who are unmarried." (Sayyid Qutb - In The Shade Of The Qur'an - The Islamic Foundation - Volume 12 - Page 206).
"'...the punishment prescribed in the Qur'an relates to unmarried persons and the punishment of stoning is prescribed by the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) for married persons." (Commentary Of: Sahih Muslim, Book 17, Number 4218 - Abdul Hamid Siddiqi's Commentary - Dar Al Arabia - Volume 3 - Chapter DCLXXXIII - Footnote 2177 - Page 920).
"Hafiz ibn Hajar has even recorded a consensus of all reputable scholars on the fact that the verse of 100 lashes refers only to non-muhsans, i.e. fornicators." (Fath Al-Bari - Volume 12 - Page 157 - cited in: Maulana Abdullah Nana - Stoning To Death In Islam - Islamic Da'wah Academy - Page 56 - Source).
Maulana Muhammad Taqi Usmani - Ma'ariful Quran - Volume 6 - Page 347:
"The punishment of whipping a hundred times is exclusive to unmarried man and woman."
The Arabic word used in Surah 24:2 is "zani" (*,*) which as proved above doesn't specifically mean married adulterer. So, point 1 mentioned by the modernist Muslim above is incorrect.
Secondly, yes, Umar did know there was a verse in Quran of stoning the adulterer (one can check Sahih Muslim, Book 17, Number 4194). However, this doesn't mean that Ali didn't believe this was a command of God. The reconciliation to this is that Allah did reveal the command to stone to death (so Umar is correct), and Ali is correct too when he affirmed that stoning was the practice of the Prophet. So, this is not a contradiction, as both aren't opposing. The recitation of the Quranic verse was abrogated, but the ruling remained and it was part of the Sunnah. So, this is not evidence that these Hadiths are to be rejected. The modernist Muslim must provide reasons according to the sciences of Hadiths and classical scholars that these Hadiths (he cited) can't be trusted. Until then, he has no case.
Some may claim that the differences in wording of Hadiths are evidence against the reliability of the Hadiths. However, the following refutes this argument:
"Due to the fact that there were many incidents of stoning and there were many Sahaba who narrated these incidents, there are slight variations found in these ahadith. However, it is not correct to completely reject stoning to death because of these slight variations. These variations are a natural result of one incident or one statement being narrated by many people. This is something which we witness time and again in our daily lives and we accept it without giving it a second thought. For example, if some people witnessed a car accident, then there will be a slight variation in the different accounts of the incident depending on the eyewitness's location and view. However, this variation is only regarding the details of how the accident took place; there is no dispute on the fact that the accident occurred. No one can say that the accident did not take place based on the discrepancy in the different narrations of this incident.
The variation in narrations is not something which is unique only to the ahadith of stoning to death. Rather, there are also slight variations in the ahadith which establish other tenets of Islam. For example, there are various methods of reciting the adhan (call to prayer) and performing the salah described in the ahadith. All Muslims accept these slight variations in the method of adhan and salah and the followers of the different madhabs (schools of jurisprudence) have based their practice on these various narrations. However, no one says that salah or adhan is not established based on these variations. Similarly, there are absolutely no grounds for rejecting the common subject matter of stoning to death mentioned in the ahadith just because of these slight variations." (Maulana Abdullah Nana - Stoning To Death In Islam - Islamic Da'wah Academy - Pages 66-67 - Source).
Moreover, the narrators who heard what their predecessors said were not inspired by God, so it is natural that we don't expect them to have remembered everything verbatim.
Allegation 6: Ali Stoned A Pregnant Lady?
This allegation is based on:
"A woman named Shurahah came to 'Ali and confessed that she is pregnant from zina'. 'Ali had her flogged on Thursday and stoned to death on Friday and said: "We flogged in accordance with the Book of God and stoned in accordance with the sunnah of the Messenger of God." (Musnad Ahmad).
So the modernist Muslims questions as to how and why he would have done this? Therefore, stoning isn't part of Islam. Firstly, even if this story is true, this would in no way disprove stoning to be part of Islam. Some have stated this Hadith is weak (Source). This narration has been declared as da'if (weak) by Sheikh Arna'oot (Number 1209, Source). There are also contradictory variations of this Hadith, which puts it in more doubt. Even if we accept it, another Hadith (Musnaf Abdur Razaaq - cited in Haqeeqat-e-Raj'm - Pages 191-92) informs us that it was after the baby was born when she was stoned. So, this is what could have occurred. Moreover, Muhammad himself waited for another pregnant women gave birth & wean the child before stoning the adulterer (refer to Sahih Muslim, Book 17, Number 4206). Imam Nawawi's stated regarding this Hadith:
"A pregnant woman should not be stoned until she gives birth, whether her pregnancy is the result of zina or otherwise. This is agreed upon, lest her foetus be killed. The same applies if her hadd punishment is flogging; a pregnant woman should not be flogged, according to the consensus, until she has given birth." (Saheeh Muslim Bu Sharh Al-Nawawi, 11/202 cited in: Muhammad Saed Abdul-Rahman - Islam: Questions and Answers - Jurisprudence and Islamic Rulings - Transactions - Part 5 - MSA Publication Limited, 2007 - Page 275).
"The punishment to a woman is to be awarded when the baby in her lap is weaned." (Commentary Of: Sahih Muslim, Book 17, Number 4225 - Abdul Hamid Siddiqi's Commentary - Dar Al Arabia - Volume 3 - Chapter DCLXXXIIV - Footnote 2180 - Page 922).
Maududi's commentary - Surah Nur 24:2:
"In the case of a pregnant woman, the flogging will be postponed till the delivery and the complete discharge of blood after childbirth. But if she is to be stoned to death, the punishment will not be given till the child has been weaned."
So, even if Ali did stone a pregnant lady, it would've been unIslamic. The Prophet never stoned a pregnant woman, and this isn't part of Islam.
Allegation 7: A Monkey Got Stoned?
Modernists Muslims refer to this Hadith:
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 188:
"Narrated 'Amr bin Maimun: During the pre-lslamic period of ignorance I saw a she-monkey surrounded by a number of monkeys. They were all stoning it, because it had committed illegal sexual intercourse. I too, stoned it along with them."
So, few modernist Muslims allege that Muslims concocted this Hadith, to make stoning seem more natural. However, this iHadith just gives Amr's perception of what he saw. Imam Hajar lives more information of this story:
"I was in Yemen tending the sheep of my people up upon an elevation. A male monkey came with a female and laid his head on her hand. Then a smaller monkey came and beckoned towards her, so she gently slipped her hand out from under the cheek of the first monkey and followed him. He mated with her while I looked on. Then she returned and gently tried to slip her hand back under the cheek of the first monkey, but he woke up suddenly, smelled her, and cried out.
Then the monkeys gathered round and he began screaming while pointing towards her with his hand. The monkeys went all about and came back with that monkey that I recognized. They dug a pit for the two of them and stoned them both. So I had witnessed stoning being carried out by other than Adam's descendants. It is not necessary that an event that looks like adultery and stoning was really a case of adultery and capital punishment. He merely described it that way because it looked like these things. It does not mean that legal accountability was being applied to animals." (Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani - Fath-ul-Bari - Source).
There's no way Amr could have known the monkeys true intentions. He wasn't a sahaba of the Prophet, but came a generation after him. Whether we believe this hadith or not, this cannot be used as evidence against stoning in Islam. Moreover, a concocted hadith is usually called a maudu hadith. Modernists Muslims have to prove this is maudu instead of blindly assuming it. For more, go here.
Allegation 8: 100 Lashes Abrogates Stoning?
The modernist Muslims bring forth the following Hadith:
Sahih Muslim, Book 17, Number 4218:
"Abu Ishaq Shaibani said: I asked 'Abdullah b. Abu Aufi if Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) awarded (the punishment) of stoning (to death). He said: Yes. I said: After Sura al-Nur was revealed or before that? He said: I do not know."
This hadith is also found in Bukhari. So they conclude from this that all cases of stoning came before Surah Nur 24, and the 100 lashes abrogate this. However, one cannot deduce from this hadith that stoning occurred before Surah Nur was revealed. It shows Abu Aufi did not know the answer to the question. One can visit: (Maulana Abdullah Nana - Stoning To Death In Islam - Islamic Da'wah Academy - Pages 58-65 - Source) for a more thorough refutation of this claim.
Modernist Muslims also claim the above Hadith shows that Abu Aufi doubted that stoning was part of Islam. The Hadith doesn't indicate this; it merely indicates he didn't know the answer to the question. Here's why the narrator asked the question:
"The question was asked in order to find out the exact punishment prescribed for adultery." (Commentary Of: Sahih Muslim, Book 17, Number 4218 - Abdul Hamid Siddiqi's Commentary - Dar Al Arabia - Volume 3 - Chapter DCLXXXIII - Footnote 2177 - Page 920).
Moreover, we've already shown above that Surah Nur was revealed before the stonings took place, which means flogging does not abrogate stoning. Also as shown above, Surah 24:2 refers to flogging the unmarried adulterers, not the married.
Allegation 9: Hadiths Collected Are 200 Years Old:
Consequently, the modernist Muslim concludes by saying the Hadiths cannot be trusted. Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi provides a concise reply:
"It is not correct to say that Hadith was compiled only 200 years after Prophet Muhammad's (peace and blessings be upon him) death because there was a great number of hadiths in circulation during the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). But most of the hadiths were compiled during the 2nd century of Hijrah. Further, the muhaddithun (Arabic for: Hadith scholars) spared no effort to verify the Hadith and distinguish between the sahih (Arabic for: authentic), da'if (Arabic for: weak) and mawdu' (Arabic for: fabricated). Having said this, there has been difference in interpretation with regard to both the Qur'an and Hadith. This is due to many factors including understanding the language and historical contexts and backgrounds. But difference of interpretation cannot be taken as a ground for denying or rejecting the source wholeheartedly." (IslamOnline - Source).
For a more detailed reply to this allegation, go here and here.
Allegation 10: Stoning Is Barbaric:
When other allegations fail, they resort to subjectivity. Whether stoning is considered to be barbaric by modernists or not, this doesn't at all disprove that Islam teaches it. Sadly, modernists Muslims who make this claim are influenced by modern man made laws and appeal to common practice, novelty, emotion etc. It's noteworthy that not long ago, various western countries offered the death penalty for certain actions. For example:
"That is England, upto the early 19th century there were 223 offences, the penalty which was death. These included theft when the value of stolen property was more than 1 shilling, tieting, destroying banks, bridges, or floodgates, offences against administration of justice, offences against public health, offences against public revenue, rape, forcible abduction and other sexual offences. Treason was severely punishable." (A. H. Qasmi - International Encyclopaedia Of Islam - Gyan Publishing House, 2006 - Page 180).
In contrast, Islamic laws are consistent, which include stoning the married adulterer. Here are some reasons why Islam offers the stoning penalty:
Muhmmad Taqi Usmani - Ma'arif Quran - Volume 6 - Page 344:
"Adultery, being a big crime by itself, also brings along with it many other crimes, the result of which is destruction of the entire social order. If the causes of killings and atrocities are probed deeply, the majority of then will appear to be caused due to illegitimate relationship with women."
Also, HIV, Aids and other STD's are caused as a result of adultery, which spread and kill many. The punishment acts as a prevention so none of this occurs. Had this deterrent existed in the past, HIV/Aids may not have killed and spread as much it had done. The argument that condoms can be used isn't strong, because condoms wasn't there until recently. Moreover:
"But condoms do not offer absolute protection against AIDS or the other STDs. Why?
> Condoms sometimes break.
> Condoms can break down in the presence of oil-based products
> Condoms sometimes leak when you take them off
> People sometimes forget to use condoms
> Even people who do use condoms for intercourse often don't use them for oral sex, which, while less risky is not safe." (Ruth K. Westheimer, Pierre A. Lehu - Sex For Dummies - For Dummies, 2006 - Page 272).
"...even the most persistent users of condoms, HOV infection "significant, not complete protection" against transmission of the AIDS virus."1 Two studies of heterosexual couples, with one partner infected and one not, came to the same conclusion. In the investigations, between 16-24% of the HIV-free partners were infected despite their regular use of condoms.2. Even the much-celebrated nomoxynol-9 )N-9) does not appear to be foolproof. In a carefully study of 72 prostitutes, 8 of 31, or 26%, using N-9 became infected with HIV compared to 9 of 41, or 22%, using a placebo." 3. All this should come as little surprise. In tests of pregnancy prevention, conception occurs in some 10-15% of cases even where condoms are consistently used and even more frequently where other methods, including spermicides, are employed."
1.Roger Detels et al., "Sexual Acitivity, Condom Use and HIV-l Serconversion" (Stockhold Conf).
2. Nancy Padian et la., "Male-to-Female Transmission of Human Immunodeficiency Virus," JAMA 258 (1987): 788-90; James J. Goedern, "What is Safe Sex?" NEJM 316 (1987): 1339-42.
3. Joan Kreiss et al., "Efficacy of the Spermicide Nonoxynol-0 (N-9) in Prevening Heterosexual Transmission of HIV" (Stockhold Conf). (William B. Johnston, Kevin R. Hopkins, Hudson Institute - The catastrophe ahead: AIDS and the case for a new public policy - Greenwood Publishing Group - Page 71).
Regardless what protection you have, if Allah wills, you will get STD's. This reminds of the following Hadiths:
"Whenever unlawful sexual intercourse becomes widespread in a society - so much so that they start doing it in the open - plagues and various types of sicknesses will spread amongst them which weren't present in previous generations." (Classed as Sahih by Al-Hakim - Vol. 4, Pg. 540 - cited in: Maulana Abdullah Nana - Stoning To Death In Islam - Islamic Da'wah Academy - Page 77 - Source).
"Whenever fornication will start becoming dominant in a society, death will spread." (Ibn Hajar - Fath Al-Bari - Vol. 10, Pg. 193 - cited in: Ibid [Note: This is a disconnected hadith - cited by Ibn Hajar - Source]).
"Abd Allah ibn 'Umar said, "The Prophet (S) came to us and said, 'O Muhajirun, (emigrants from Makkah to al-Madinah) you may be afflicted by five things; God forbid that you should live to see them. If fornication should become widespread, you should realize that this has never happened without new diseases befalling the people which their forebears never suffered." (Ibn Majah - Kitab Al-Fitan - Hadith 4019 - 2/1332 - cited in: Ibn Kathir - The Signs Before The Day Of Judgement - Dar Al Taqwa Ltd. 1991 - Pages 16-17 [classed by Sheikh Albani as Hasan - Source]. Hadith also in Jami' al-Saghir - classed as Sahih by Albani - Source).
Indeed, the prophecy has come true. Moreover, adultery encourages unfaithfulness to ones spouse. By committing this act, you may have to tell fibs to try and get away with it, and to try and get away with it, you may end up wasting money. We find examples in the world today, sadly. No wonder the omniscient Creator informed us:
Surah Isra 17:32:
"Nor come nigh to adultery: for it is a shameful (deed) and an evil, opening the road (to other evils)."
One can visit (Maulana Abdullah Nana - Stoning To Death In Islam - Islamic Da'wah Academy - Pages 67-94 - Source) for more reasons as to why Islam forbids adultery, and statistics which highlight the negative results of adultery. So, a person would think dozens of times before going behind his/her spouse's back and committing adultery, if the stoning penalty was implemented.
Evidence Islam Teaches Stoning:
The stoning verse was revealed in the Quran, but only it's recitation was abrogated, not the ruling. There are 3 types of abrogation in which the Quran abrogates itself:
Ibn Salama, al-nasikh wa al-mansukh, Cairo, 1966, p.5.
Abrogation of the recited (verse) together with the legal ruling.
Abrogation of the legal ruling without the recited (verse).
Abrogation of the recited (verse) without the legal ruling.
"Abrogated Qur'anic verses fall into three categories. The first is where abrogation affects the two aspects of a Qur'anic text: the ruling, as well the recitation (nask al-hukm wa al-tilawah). In this type of abrogation, the verse is withdrawn from the Qur'anic text and its ruling is no longer valid.
The second catagory of abrogation affects the ruling of a verse but not its wording (nask al-hukm duna al-tilawah). This means that the verse remains part of the Qur'anic text and is recited. However, the ruling it conveys is no longer in operation.
The third category of abrogation affects the wording of a verse but not its ruling. This means that, although the verse is no longer part of the Qur'anic text, its ruling remains applicable." (Abdullah Saeed - Interpreting The Qur'an: Towards A Contemporary Approach - Routledge, 2006 - Pages 79-80).
Similar thing is mentioned in: (Abbas Jaffer & Masuma Jaffer - Quranic Sciences - ICAS Press - Pages 153-156). The 3rd type of abrogation applied to the verse of stoning. It's recitation was abrogated, but the ruling was still binding.
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 816:
"Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: 'Umar said, "I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, "We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book," and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses or pregnancy or confession." Sufyan added, "I have memorized this narration in this way." 'Umar added, "Surely Allah's Apostle carried out the penalty of Rajam, and so did we after him."
الراوي زيد بن ثابت: قال زيد كنا نقرأ والشيخ والشيخة . . فقال مروان أفلا نجعله في المصحف قال لا ألا ترى أن الشابين الثيبين يرجمان قال وقال ذكروا ذلك وفينا عمر بن الخطاب رضي الله عنه قال أنا أشفيكم من ذاك قال قلنا كيف قال آتي النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فأذكر كذا وكذا فإذا ذكر الرجم أقول يا رسول الله أكتبني آية الرجم قال فأتيته فذكرته قال فذكر آية الرجم قال فقال يا رسول الله أكتبني آية الرجم قال لا أستطيع ذاك
"Narrated Zaid Bin Thabit: we used to read: "The old man and the old woman." Marwan said: "Shouldn't we write it down as part of the written Quran?" He replied: "Don't you see that the two young married (adulterers) are to be stoned?" And Umar Bin Al Khattab - may Allah be pleased with him was with us then, so he said: "I will get the answer." We both said: "How?" He said: "From the Prophet, and I will mention such and such to him, and when I get to stoning, I will say: Oh Messenger of Allah, allow me to write the stoning verse." He (Umar) said: "O Messenger of Allah, let me write the stoning verse. He said: "I can't." (Sunan Al-Baihaqi - Classed Sahih By Sheikh Albani In: Silsilat Al-Sahiha, 6/974 - Source. Also In Sunan Nasai, 3046).
Baihaqi's footnote of the above Hadith is:
في هذا وما قبله دلالة على أن آية الرجم حكمها ثابت ، وتلاوتها منسوخة ، وهذا مما لا أعلم فيه يه خل
"With this & what was earlier, this indicates the ruling of the stoning verse is permanent and it's recitation abrogated, and this is something not known to be disputed." (Source).
The reason the Prophet didn't allow Umar to write it down because it's recitation was abrogated. Ibn Hajar gives us a hadith:
فقال عمر : لما نزلت أتيت النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقلت أكتبها ؟ فكأنه كره ذلك , فقال عمر : ألا ترى أن الشيخ إذا زنى ولم يحصن جلد , وأن الشاب إذا زنى وقد أحصن رجم
"Umar said: "When this verse came down I approached the Prophet peace be upon him so I asked him: Should I write it down? It is as if he hated that. Then Umar said: "Cant you see that if the old man if he commits adultery he does not get the whip, and that if the young man if he commits adultery he gets stoned?" (Ibn Hajar - Fathul Bari - Hadith Commentary Of Bukhari, 6441 - 1407 AH/1986 - Source).
This Hadith (similar wording) is also in: (Musnad Umar, 2/870 - Classed Sahih & Muhalla Bi Al-Athar, 11/235 - Classed Sahih By Ibn Hazm - Source).
The verse of stoning wasn't supposed to stay in the Quran, which is why the Prophet didn't want it in there. There are a few opinions as to what the verse actually was. The opinions could be read here and here. What is the wisdom behind this type of abrogation? To test Muslims as to whether or not they would follow the sunnah and the Quran. Both are equally authoritative in terms of law, and this type of abrogation tests those who claim to be true Muslims (i.e. Quran only group).
We've already seen from Sahih Muslim above that Islam teaches stoning. More hadiths are:
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 83, Number 17:
"Narrated 'Abdullah: Allah's Apostle said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims."
Sahih Muslim, Book 16, Number 4152:
"'Abdullah (b. Mas'ud) reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: It is not permissible to take the life of a Muslim who bears testimony (to the fact that there is no god but Allah, and I am the Messenger of Allah, but in one of the three cases: the married adulterer, a life for life, and the deserter of his Din (Islam), abandoning the community."
"Narrated By Aisha: The Prophet (pbuh) said: Shedding blood of a Muslim man who declares 'there is no God except the One God and that Muhammad is a messenger of God', is not permitted except in one of three cases: A man who commits fornication after having been married, for such a man shall be stoned to death; A man who declares and promotes rebellion against God and His messenger, for such a man shall be killed or crucified or sent into exile from his land; or if he kills a [crimeless] soul, for he shall be killed in retaliation." (Targhib Wa-Al-Tarhib - 3/259 - Isnad is Sahih/Hassan - Source).
روي أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال: لا يحل دم امرئ مسلم يشهد أن لا إله إلا الله وأن محمدا رسول الله إلا بإحدى ثلاث رجل زنى بعد إحصان فإنه يرجم ورجل خرج محاربا لله ورسوله فإنه يقتل أو يصلب أو ينفى من الأرض أو يقتل نفسا فيقتل بها
"Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin: The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) Said: The blood of a Muslim man who testifies that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle should not lawfully be shed except only for one of three reasons: a man who committed fornication after marriage, in which case he should be stoned; one who goes forth to fight with Allah and His Apostle, in which case he should be killed or crucified or exiled from the land; or one who commits murder for which he is killed." (Abu Dawud - 4353 - Classed as Sahih By Sheikh Al Albani - Source).
Hadiths which are similar to the above one could be found in [Musnad Ahmad - 6/64 (Classed as Sahih By Ahmed Shaker - Source) & Classed Sahih By Sheikh Arna'oot, Numbers 3621 & 4065 - Source] & [Tirmidhi - 1402 (Classed as Sahih By Sheikh Al Albani - Source)].
الشيخ والشيخة إذا زنيا فارجموهما البتة نكالا من الله ورسوله
"Narrated Zaid Bin Thabit: The old man and the old woman, if they commit adultery then they stone both of them as an exemplary punishment from Allah and his Messenger." (Ithaf Al-Khirah Al-Maharah - 6/257 - Isnad Classed As Trustworthy By Busayri - Source).
عَنْ الْعَجْمَاءِ، قَالَتْ: سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، يَقُولُ:الشَّيْخُ وَالشَّيْخَةُ إِذَا زَنَيَا، فَارْجُمُوهُمَا الْبَتَّةُ بِمَا قَضَيَا مِنَ اللَّذَّةِ
"Narrated by 'Ajma, she said: I heard that Messenger of Allah say; 'When a married man or woman commit adultery stone them both to death.'" (Tabarani Kabeer, Hadith 20321 - cited here).
Moreover, even more hadiths show us Muhammad taught stoning, and they can be viewed here. An example of the Prophet implementing stoning...
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 63, Number 195:
"A man from the tribe of Bani Aslam came to the Prophet while he was in the mosque and said, "I have committed illegal sexual intercourse." The Prophet turned his face to the other side. The man turned towards the side towards which the Prophet had turned his face, and gave four witnesses against himself. On that the Prophet called him and said, "Are you insane?" (He added), "Are you married?" The man said, 'Yes." On that the Prophet ordered him to be stoned to the death in the Musalla (a praying place). When the stones hit him with their sharp edges and he fled, but he was caught at Al-Harra and then killed."
Similarly, there are more example of Muhammad stoning married adulterers. One can check (Maulana Abdullah Nana - Stoning To Death In Islam - Islamic Da'wah Academy - Pages 23-27 - Source) for references of other examples of stonings. These are classed as tawatur (consecutive) hadiths.
Finally, let us appeal to scholarship.
"The majority of theologians, the four Imams (Abu Hanifa, Shafii, Malik and Ahmed bin Hambal) and other learned jurists hold the order for stoning for death still exists." (A. H. Qasmi - International Encyclopaedia Of Islam - Gyan Publishing House, 2006 - Page 288).
"The command to kill the adulterer by stoning is reported by almost all books of Hadith (Muslim, Abu Dawood, Ibn Majah, Baihawi, Ahmad). This, there is no difference of opinion amongst Muslim scholars over this issue that married adulterers must be stoned to death." (M M Akbar - Authenticity Of Quran - DA'WA BOOKS - Page 240).
"Ibn Qudamah says: stoning is obligatory upon whoever commits adultery after having being married. This is the statement of all the people of knowledge from the Companions and the Successors and those who came after then in every land and age. No one ever disputed this expect the Khawarij." (Jim McCrudden - Islam FAQ - 2008 - Page 134).
"The hadd punishment of stoning for a married person who commits zina is one of the matters that is determined by the Qur'aan and Sunnah and there is no room for ijtihaad or personal opinion." (Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa'imah, 22/48-49 cited in: Muhammad Saed Abdul-Rahman - Islam: Questions and Answers - Jurisprudence and Islamic Rulings - Transactions - Volume 29 - Part 8 - MSA Publication Limited, 2004 - Page 179).
Majority hold the view that for the married adulterer, stoning & flogging isn't advisable.
"There is a difference of opinion amongst the jurists as to the precise nature of the punishment prescribed for adultery. There is however no difference of opinion that the punishment prescribed for married persons is stoning to death and for unmarried persons it is one hundred lashes. The difference is whether it is essential to combine lashing with stoning as recorded in the hadith for married persons and lashing with exile for unmarried offenders. Imam Ahmad, Dawud Zahiri and Ishaq b. Rahawai, on the authority of the ahadith recorded above, assert that on case of married persons there are two punishments, i.e. lashing and stoning,, and above both should be awarded.
The other jurists who form an overwhelming majority are of the opinion that it is not advisable to aware two punishments together as it was not done by the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) himself, but only in once case and that too under exceptional circumstances. It is narrated on the authority of Jabir b. 'Abdullah that a person committed adultery, and the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) punished him with one hundred lashes , but, later on, it was found out that the offender was married one and then the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) awarded him the punishment of stoning to death." (Commentary Of: Sahih Muslim, Book 17, Number 4192 - Abdul Hamid Siddiqi's Commentary - Dar Al Arabia - Volume 3 - Chapter DCLXXX - Footnote 2154 - Page 911)
This same point that majority held the view of only stoning is stated by Imam Nawawi (Imam Nawawi - Sharh Saheeh Muslim - cited here).
Further readings:
Refuting Modernist Muslims On Stoning (Rajm)
Myth of Quran's lost verse about stoning answered
The Quranic Verse On Stoning
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/...h-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503545902
THE PRESERVATION OF THE QURAN AND THE LIES OF CHRISTIANS
Refuting The Argument That Stoning Adulterers Isn't Part Of Islam
There are some modernist Muslims that argue that stoning adulterers isn't part of Islam, even though authentic Hadiths, the consensus of scholars, muhaddiths & mushtahids affirm this. In other words, they reject these Hadiths relating to stoning as inauthentic. This reminds us of a following saying of the Prophet:
"Narrated Al Miqdaam: The Messenger of Allah peace be upon him said: I have been given the Quran and that which is similar to it. Yet, there will come a time when a man will be leaning on his couch saying: 'Follow only the Quran: what it says is halal, we take as halal, and what it says is haram, we take as haram.' But listen! Whatever the Messenger of Allah forbids is like what Allah forbids." (Sahih Jami - Declared Sahih By Sheikh Albani - Source & here & Declared Sahih By Imam Ad-Dhababi - Source & Sahih Hasan By Ibn Hajar - Source. Also In Sunan Abu Dawud, #4604 [slightly different wording] - Declared Sahih By Abu Dawud - Source).
This Hadith is also in Ibn Maajah, declared as sahih by Shiekh Albani (Source), and another one in Tirmidhi declared as sahih by the same scholar, (Source) and in Abu Dawud graded as sahih by the same scholar (Source), all will slightly different wordings. So, the Holy Prophet even predicted people would abandon hadiths, and we find modernists Muslims doing exactly that. Let us analyse the claims given by such people, and see if it proves stoning isn't part of Islam:
Allegation 1 - Halving The Punishment Of Adultery:
We read the following verse:
Surah Nisa 4:25:
"If any of you have not the means wherewith to wed free believing women, they may wed believing girls from among those whom your right hands possess: And Allah hath full knowledge about your faith. Ye are one from another: Wed them with the leave of their owners, and give them their dowers, according to what is reasonable: They should be chaste, not lustful, nor taking paramours: when they are taken in wedlock, if they fall into shame, their punishment is half that for free women. This (permission) is for those among you who fear sin; but it is better for you that ye practise self-restraint. And Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful."
So, they claim that the verse says half the punishment of a free woman adulterer would be given to 'whom your right hands possess' (captives or slaves). They then claim that if stoning to death is the punishment for adultery in Islam, how can you half the death penalty? Therefore, they conclude by claiming that Surah Nur 24:2 offers 100 lashes for adulterer, so 50 lashes for captives/slaves should be given, indicating stoning the adulterer is not part of Islam.
Firstly, the verse does not give half the punishment of a free woman adulterer. The word "adulterer" isn't there in the Arabic text. The Arabic word used here is "bifahishatin" (بفاحشة
(*) which doesn't specifically mean adultery, it means:
Sakhr Dictionary - 2006/2007:
"obscene, ribald, dirty, foul, ******, vulgar, indecent, bawdy, shameless, lewd."
Babylon Dictionary:
"lewdness, misconduct, obscenity, ****, pornography."
Google Dictionary:
"Immortality."
So we see it doesn't specifically refer or mean adultery. The meaning of the word can refer to any type of immorality. Since stoning to death cannot be halved, the 4 great scholars agree that this word here must refer to premarital sex when referring to free women, but refers to the slave/captive who commits premarital sex & adultery. In other words, the captive/slave who commits premarital sex & adultery gets half the punishment that the free woman would get, if the free woman had committed premarital sex. This indicates that the punishment for the free woman adulterers would be different than free woman who commit premarital sex.
Ibn Kathir's Tafsir - Surah Nisa 4:25:
"(their punishment is half of that for free (unmarried) women.) indicates that the type of punishment prescribed here is the one that can be reduced to half, lashes in this case, not stoning to death, and Allah knows best."
Maulana Muhammad Taqi Usmani - Ma'ariful Quran - Volume 2 - Page 395:
"As for the married man and woman committing zina (adultery), the punishment is rajm which is death by stoning. Since this particular punishment cannot be reduced to half, all four Imams agree on the position that the punishment of zina committed by a bondman of bondwoman, married or unmarried, is fifty lashes."
Maududi's Commentary - Surah Nisa 4:25:
"This also explains that the punishment for unlawful sexual intercourse (zina) laid down in Surah al-Nur 24: 2 refers to the offence committed by unmarried free women alone, and it is in comparison with their punishment that the punishment of married slave women has been laid down as half."
Muhsin Khan Footnote - Surah Nisa 4:25:
"Female or male slaves (married or unmarried); if they commit illegal sexual intercourse, their punishment is fifty (50) lashes (half of that which is for free unmarried women); neither stoning to death nor exile."
"It goes without saying that this represents the measurable penalty that can be halved, i.e. flogging. It does not apply to the penalty of stoning which cannot be divided. Hence, if a married believing slave commits adultery, she is given half the punishment of an unmarried free woman. If the slave who commits fornication is unmarried, her penalty is subject to different views among scholars. Some are of the opinion that it is the same, i.e. half the penalty of an unmarried free woman, and that the Imam or ruler administers it. Others are of the view that it is a reduced punishment, administered by her master. These views are argued in books of jurisprudence." (Sayyid Qutb - In The Shade Of The Qur'an - The Islamic Foundation - Volume 3 - Page 85).
Also, Imam Qurtubi's tafsir & Baghawi's tafsir states it is 50 lashes. Moreover, a scholar commentating on Surah Nisa 4:25:
"It should be borne in mind that almost all the English translators of the Holy Qur'an have translated the word al-Muhsanat as free married women, and on the basis of this translation have jumped to the conclusion that stoning to death is not prescribed in Islam. The Khwarij also hold the same view. They argue that if the prescribed punishment for the married women is stoning to death, then how is it possible to award half the punishment to the married slave-women as it is stated in the above mentioned verse of the Qur'an, that the slave-women are liable to half the punishment. These translators and exponents of the Qur'an fail to realize that the word Muhsanat does not always mean married women. It sometimes implies the free married women and sometimes it stands for the women who are given the protection of a family. Here in the above mentioned verse the word Muhsanat has been used in the second sense." (Commentary Of: Sahih Muslim, Book 17, Number 4221 - Abdul Hamid Siddiqi's Commentary - Dar Al Arabia - Volume 3 - Chapter DCLXXXIII - Footnote 2178 - Page 921).
Additionally, the Arabic "Muhsanat" used in Surah Nisa 4:25 (*) comes from the root "hasana" which means:
Lane's Lexicon - Volume 2 - Pages 222-223:
"To be guarded, be inaccessible, be chaste, be strongly fortified, be preserved, be protected."
This would be referring to the unmarried person, which in context would mean the punishment for the slaves/captives for committing adultery or pre martial sex is half of the unmarried woman. The punishment for the unmarried woman is 100 lashes (Surah Nur 24:2), so half of that would be 50 for captives/slaves. This leaves no question of not being able to half the punishment for married adulterers.
Allegation 2 - Adulterer's Can't Marry, If The Punishment Is Stoning:
This allegation stems from the following verse:
Surah Nur 24:3:
"Let no man guilty of adultery or fornication marry and but a woman similarly guilty, or an Unbeliever: nor let any but such a man or an Unbeliever marry such a woman: to the Believers such a thing is forbidden."
So the argument is that if married adulterers are to be stoned to death, how can the Quran then say that adulterers can only marry adulterers/unbelievers? Once your stoned to death, you cannot marry. But if the punishment is 100 lashes for married adulterers, then they can marry fornicators/unbelievers. Therefore, stoning married adulterers isn't part of Islam.
Firstly, the Arabic words used in the above verse is "zani" and "zaniyatan" (*,*) which means:
Lanes Lexicon - Volume 3 - Page 426:
"to mount, the mounting upon a thing, to commit fornication/adultery, fornicator/adulterer."
Sakhr Dictionary - 2006/2007:
"adulteress, *****, harlot, prostitute."
Websters Dictionary:
"(prostitute, adulteress, strumpet, incestuous), فاجرة (adulteress, harlot, prostitute, *****, unchaste woman), زانِيَة (adulteress, prostitute, strumpet, adulteresses, *****), فاجِرَة (adulteress, harlot, adulteresses, *****, bitched), قَحْبَة (harlot, adulteress, adulteresses, *****, bitched), بِنْتُ الهَوَى (adulteress, adulteresses, *****, bitched, bitches), مُومِسَة (adulteress, adulteresses, *****, bitched, bitches), بَغِيّ (harlot, adulteress, adulteresses, *****, bitched), مُومِس (*****, harlot, moll, prostitute, strumpet), زانيات (adulteress, adulterous)."
Alexadria Dictionary:
"adulteress, fornicatress, hussy, jade, loose woman, slut, strumpet, trollop."
Babylon Dictionary:
"adulterer, corespondent, prostitute, strumpet [sl.], hooker [sl.], adulteress."
WordReference Dictionary:
"scrubber, hussy, adulteress."
Dicts Dictionary:
"prostitute ; cocotte ; ***** ; harlot ; bawd ; tart ; cyprian ; fancy woman ; working girl ; sporting lady ; lady of pleasure ; woman of the street."
Verbace Dictionary:
"*****, adulteress, prostitute."
So, this verse doesn't single out the meaning to a particular meaning. In light of the following Hadiths, the above verse when referring to Muslims, refers to unmarried adulterers (a Muslim who commits pre martial sex).
Abu Dawud, Book 11, Number 2047:
"Narrated AbuHurayrah: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: The adulterer who has been flogged shall not marry save the one like him. AbuMa'mar said: Habib al-Mu'allim narrated (this tradition) to us on the authority of Amr ibn Shu'ayb." (Declared as sahih by Sheikh Albani - Source).
This Hadith is also in Musnad Ahmad & has been declared by Muhammad Ibn Abdul-Hadi as having a good chain (Source) & by Sheikh Arna'oot - (Source). Moreover, Ibn Kathir declared this as strong supported Hadith (Ibn Kathir - The Guidance Of Al-Fiqh - 2 /149 - Source), and Imam Hajar stated it's trustworthy (Source). So, this hadith indicates that unmarried adulterers are allowed to get married to pious Muslims, so long as they repent to Allah sincerely (Maulana Muhammad Taqi Usmani - Ma'ariful Quran - Volume 6 - Pages 357-358). Unmarried adulterers would be able to marry, as the punishment for this is 100 lashes.
"Indeed Imam Ahmad is of the view that marriage is forbidden between an adulterer and a chaste woman, or between a chaste man and an adulteress. A prerequisite for such a marriage to be valid is for such offenders to genuinely repent." (Sayyid Qutb - In The Shade Of The Qur'an - The Islamic Foundation - Volume 12 - Page 207).
"This verse, then, implies that a believer is forbidden to marry an adulteress unless she genuinely repents. The same applies to a female believer and an adulterer. This is the view Imam Ahmad took, but other scholars had a different view." (Ibid - Page 208).
When we look at this verse with the historical background, this referred to a man who wanted to marry a prostitute:
Abu Dawud, Book 11, Number 2046:
"Narrated Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-'As: Marthad ibn AbuMarthad al-Ghanawi used to take prisoners (of war) from Mecca (to Medina). At Mecca there was a prostitute called Inaq who had illicit relations with him. (Marthad said
I came to the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and said to him: May I marry Inaq, Apostle of Allah? The narrator said: He kept silence towards me. Then the verse was revealed:"....and the adulteress none shall marry save and adulterer or an idolater." He called me and recited this (verse) to me, and said: Do not marry her." (Declared as sahih hasan by Sheikh Albani - Source).
A similar Hadith is in Sunan al-Tirmidhi & classed as hasan (Source), and in Musnad Ahmad, but it's chain is weak (Source). However, Shikeh Arna'oot declared this narration is Musnad Ahmad is Hasan (Number 6480, Source). Al-Wahidi mentions the similar story in his tafsir. When looking at the verse in the historical background, this would mean it is not suitable for the chaste men and women to marry those who are committing fornication. This is why the Prophet told him not to marry her. Applying the Islamic law and referring this to Muslims, it obviously it doesn't refer to married adulterers, since such people would get stoned. In light of the Hadiths, this wouldn't refer to Muslim married adulterers, which leaves no question of married adulterers not being able to get married. For further discussion, go here.
Allegation 3 - Punishment Cannot Be Doubled:
This allegation by the modernist Muslim is based on:
Surah Ahzab 33:30:
"O Consorts of the Prophet! If any of you were guilty of evident unseemly conduct, the Punishment would be doubled to her, and that is easy for Allah."
The modernist Muslim argues that if the punishment is stoning to death, how can stoning be doubled? Firstly, the verse doesn't even say adultery. The Arabic word used here is "bifahishatin" (بفاحشة
(*) which doesn't specifically mean adultery, as shown above. Secondly, the punishment here isn't refer to a legal punishment which is to be implemented. It is referring to afterlife punishment.
Tabari's tafsir - Surah Ahzab 33:30:
"Punishment would be doubled to her, it means punishment of the Hereafter."
Ibn Kathir's tafsir - Surah Ahzab 33:30:
"(the torment for her will be doubled,) "In this world and the next.'' Something similar was narrated from Ibn Abi Najih, from Mujahid."
Similarly, Imam Qurtubi states the same thing in his tafsir. The modernist Muslim may argue that the above says "in this world" so how can the stoning be doubled? The above seems to imply that double punishment is both stoning in this world and punishment in the next, not doubling in this world then doubling in the hereafter. Even if it did refer to this, doubling the punishment could simply mean punishing in different ways (i.e. a punishment of the grave after stoning). Moreover, on the day of judgment, punishment can be doubled there, so there is no proof that it strictly refers to worldly legal punishment to be implemented. Also, looking at the context prior and after verse 30, the hereafter is mentioned which supports the argument that double punishment would be in the afterlife, if any of the Prophet's wives were guilty of immorality.
Allegation 4 - Muhammad Judged By The Torah?
This allegations stems from:
Sahih Muslim, Book 17, Number 4211:
"Abdullah b. 'Umar reported that a Jew and a Jewess were brought to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) who had committed adultery. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) came to the Jews and said: What do you find in Torah for one who commits adultery? They said: We darken their faces and make them ride on the donkey with their faces turned to the opposite direction (and their backs touching each other), and then they are taken round (the city). He said: Bring Torah if you are truthful. They brought it and recited it until when they came to the verse pertaining to stoning, the person who was reading placed his hand on the verse pertaining to stoning, and read (only that which was) between his hands and what was subsequent to that. Abdullah b. Salim who was at that time with the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Command him (the reciter) to lift his hand. He lifted it and there was, underneath that, the verse pertaining to stoning. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) pronounced judgment about both of them and they were stoned. Abdullah b. 'Umar said: I was one of those who stoned them, and I saw him (the Jew) protecting her (the Jewess) with his body."
This Hadith is also found in Sahih Bukhari. So the modernist Muslim argues as to how could Muhammad judge by the corrupted Torah and not the Quran? Therefore, stoning the adulterer cannot be part of Islam. Firstly, the Prophet stoning the adulterer according to the law of the Torah doesn't mean that he went against the Quran. No-where does the Quran contradict the Torah, regarding the punishment for married adulterers.
This incident is linked with Surah Maidah 5:41-45, and occurred after 6-7 years after the Hjrah (Refer to Ibn Kathir's tafsir - Surah Maidah 5:43 & Maududi's Surah 5 Intro). Stoning became part of Islam before this.
"We can say with certainty that all the incidents of stoning or the majority of them occurred after the verse of 100 lashes was revealed. Surah Nur was revealed in response to the accusation which was leveled against Aishah which took place immediately after the Battle of Banu Mustaliq. The scholars have differed with regard to the date in which this battle took place. Some say it was 3 A.H., others say that it was 5 A.H., and yet others hold the view that it took place in 6 A.H. Musa ibn Uqbah - one of the most knowledgeable scholars regarding wars and battles - says that this battle took place in 5 A.H., shortly before the Battle of Ahzab (confederates).
Hafiz ibn Hajar has also given preference to this view and supported it with many proofs." (Fathul Bari - Vol. 7, Pg. 430 - cited in: Maulana Abdullah Nana - Stoning To Death In Islam - Islamic Da'wah Academy - Page 59 - Source).
Similarly, the most illustrious scholar of Islamic history: Waqidy stated this view is correct (U'mdatul Qari - Vol. 17, Pg. 200-201 - cited in: Maulana Abdullah Nana - Stoning To Death In Islam - Islamic Da'wah Academy - Page 59 - Source), and so did Allamah A'yni.
Commenting on when stonings took place, a major scholar writes:
"The event of 'Aseef, the event of Maiz, the event of Ghamidiyyah and the event of the Jewish couple occurred after the revelation of the verse of Surah-i- Noor which contains the punishment of Ifk hundred stripes. The revelation of this verse took place at the occasion of the event of Ifk which had occurred on the return of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) and his companions from the war of Banu Mustalaq.
This occasion had taken place at all costs before fifth or sixth Hijra as stated by Ibn-i-Hasham, Tabari, Ibn-i-Taymiyyah, Asqalani, 'Ayni, Qustalani and others. But the events of execution of Rajm took place after seventh, eighth and ninth Hijra because those companions who had witnessed the events and had participated in the stoning, accepted Islam and associated themselves with the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) in the seventh, eighth and ninth Hijra. It was only in their presence and with their participation that the execution of Rajm materialized. These facts can be easily studies through the following references:
1. Fath-ul-Bari Vol.XII, p.119.
2.'Umdat-ul-Qari, Vol.XXII, p.291.
3. Irshad-us-Sari, Vol.X, p.9.
4. As-Sarim-ul-Maslool, p.51.
5. Tarikh-ul-Khamees, Vol.II, p.139
6. Mohammod Shihab Kharasoni, Adwar-i-Fiqh Vol.I, p.323." (Prof. Dr. Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri - Legal Character Of Islamic Punishments - Minhaj-ul-Quran Publications - Pages 22-23).
"'Allama Badr-ud-Din 'Aini has clearly states that the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) awarded the punishment of stoning after the revelation of Surah Nur. This Surah was revealed in connection with the incident of Ifk and thus its revelation could not be beyond the sixth year of Hijra. There are, no doubt, other statements which tell us that it was revealed earlier than that, say in the fourth or fifth year of Hijra but none claims it to be revealed after the sixth." (Umdat-ul-Qari - Vol XXIII, p 291 - cited in: Commentary Of: Sahih Muslim, Book 17, Number 4218 - Abdul Hamid Siddiqi's Commentary - Dar Al Arabia - Volume 3 - Chapter DCLXXXIII - Footnote 2177 - Page 920).
So, stoning was already part of Islam before this incident occurred. The reason why the Prophet judged by the law of the Torah is:
Maududi's commentary - Surah Maidah 5:42:
"Until then the Jews had not become full-fledged subjects of the Islamic state. Their relations with that state were based on agreements according to which the Jews were to enjoy internal autonomy, and their disputes were to be decided by their own judges and in accordance with their own laws."
Moreover, Allah gave the prophet a choice to judge between them in:
Surah Maidah 5:42:
"(They are fond of) listening to falsehood, of devouring anything forbidden. If they do come to thee, either judge between them, or decline to interfere. If thou decline, they cannot hurt thee in the least. If thou judge, judge in equity between them. For Allah loveth those who judge in equity."
Verse 43 in historical context confirms that stoning was Allah's command in the original Torah. Although parts of original Torah revealed to Moses had been corrupted, this teaching still remained in there (Levitcus 20:10). We read:
Sahih Muslim, Book 17, Number 4214:
"Thereupon Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: O Allah, I am the first to revive Thy command when they had made it dead. He then commanded and he (the offender) was stoned to death."
The context of the full Hadith refers to the same incident. Muhammad here confirms that Allah's command was made dead by the Jews, indicating stoning was part of the original Torah, and is not abrogated as a teaching of Islam. In a Hadith of Abu Dawud, we read:
Ibn Kathir's tafsir - Surah Maidah 5:43:
"Abu Dawud recorded that Ibn 'Umar said, "Some Jews came to the Messenger of Allah and invited him to go to the Quff area. So he went to the house of Al-Midras and they said, 'O Abu Al-Qasim! A man from us committed adultery with a woman, so decide on their matter.' They arranged a pillow for the Messenger of Allah and he sat on it and said,
(Bring the Tawrah to me.) He was brought the Tawrah and he removed the pillow from under him and placed the Tawrah on it, saying,
(I trust you and He Who revealed it to you.) He then said,
(Bring me your most knowledgeable person.) So he was brought a young man... '' and then he mentioned the rest of the story that Malik narrated from Nafi."
There is a dispute amongst the scholars concerning the authenticity of this Hadith. Sheikh Albani considers this hasan (Source), while others consider it weak (see here & here). Assuming this is hasan, it would refer to the stoning verse as being part of the original Torah. Even if it is a weak hadith, this incident of Muhammad judging the Jews by the Torah doesn't in any way contradict the Quran.
Some may argue that Surah 5:48-49 commands us to judge by what Allah had revealed, yet Muhammad judged by the Torah, in this specific case. However, Muhammad judging the Jews by the Torah here was in actual fact judging by Allah's law, as stoning was part of the original Torah, and Islam confirmed this teaching as not abrogated. See here for more.
Allegation 5: Contradictory Views:
The allegation of contradictory views is given by a modernist Muslim:
"And 'Ali after flogging a woman; who had committed adultery, and then stoning her to death, is reported to have said: 'I have flogged her in obedience to the commandment of the Book of God and have stoned her to death in accordance with the practice of the Holy Prophet' (Bukhari). From these sayings two inferences manifestly emerge: (1) In the matter of punishing an adulterer the practice of the Holy Prophet was at variance with the commandment of God as laid down in the Qur'an, which is impossible. (2) Whereas according to 'Umar there was a commandment in the Book of God about stoning to death of an adulterer, according to 'Ali there was no such commandment, but it was only the practice of the Holy Prophet according to which he ('Ali) stoned to death persons guilty of adultery. These sayings are not only mutually contradictory but demonstrably conflict with the express Divine commandment and therefore must be rejected as pure fabrications or at best distorted versions of what they said." (Source).
Firstly, Muhammad offering stoning to death as a penalty is not contradictory to the Quran. Surah Nur 24:2 refers to the unmarried adulterers only. Commenting on Surah Nur 24:2, we read:
"Such stoning is confirmed in the Sunnah, while flogging is established clearly in the Qur'an. Since the Qur'anic statement is phrased in general terms, and the Prophet inflicted stoning on a married man and a married woman who committed adultery, it is clear that the punishment of flogging applies only to adulterers who are unmarried." (Sayyid Qutb - In The Shade Of The Qur'an - The Islamic Foundation - Volume 12 - Page 206).
"'...the punishment prescribed in the Qur'an relates to unmarried persons and the punishment of stoning is prescribed by the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) for married persons." (Commentary Of: Sahih Muslim, Book 17, Number 4218 - Abdul Hamid Siddiqi's Commentary - Dar Al Arabia - Volume 3 - Chapter DCLXXXIII - Footnote 2177 - Page 920).
"Hafiz ibn Hajar has even recorded a consensus of all reputable scholars on the fact that the verse of 100 lashes refers only to non-muhsans, i.e. fornicators." (Fath Al-Bari - Volume 12 - Page 157 - cited in: Maulana Abdullah Nana - Stoning To Death In Islam - Islamic Da'wah Academy - Page 56 - Source).
Maulana Muhammad Taqi Usmani - Ma'ariful Quran - Volume 6 - Page 347:
"The punishment of whipping a hundred times is exclusive to unmarried man and woman."
The Arabic word used in Surah 24:2 is "zani" (*,*) which as proved above doesn't specifically mean married adulterer. So, point 1 mentioned by the modernist Muslim above is incorrect.
Secondly, yes, Umar did know there was a verse in Quran of stoning the adulterer (one can check Sahih Muslim, Book 17, Number 4194). However, this doesn't mean that Ali didn't believe this was a command of God. The reconciliation to this is that Allah did reveal the command to stone to death (so Umar is correct), and Ali is correct too when he affirmed that stoning was the practice of the Prophet. So, this is not a contradiction, as both aren't opposing. The recitation of the Quranic verse was abrogated, but the ruling remained and it was part of the Sunnah. So, this is not evidence that these Hadiths are to be rejected. The modernist Muslim must provide reasons according to the sciences of Hadiths and classical scholars that these Hadiths (he cited) can't be trusted. Until then, he has no case.
Some may claim that the differences in wording of Hadiths are evidence against the reliability of the Hadiths. However, the following refutes this argument:
"Due to the fact that there were many incidents of stoning and there were many Sahaba who narrated these incidents, there are slight variations found in these ahadith. However, it is not correct to completely reject stoning to death because of these slight variations. These variations are a natural result of one incident or one statement being narrated by many people. This is something which we witness time and again in our daily lives and we accept it without giving it a second thought. For example, if some people witnessed a car accident, then there will be a slight variation in the different accounts of the incident depending on the eyewitness's location and view. However, this variation is only regarding the details of how the accident took place; there is no dispute on the fact that the accident occurred. No one can say that the accident did not take place based on the discrepancy in the different narrations of this incident.
The variation in narrations is not something which is unique only to the ahadith of stoning to death. Rather, there are also slight variations in the ahadith which establish other tenets of Islam. For example, there are various methods of reciting the adhan (call to prayer) and performing the salah described in the ahadith. All Muslims accept these slight variations in the method of adhan and salah and the followers of the different madhabs (schools of jurisprudence) have based their practice on these various narrations. However, no one says that salah or adhan is not established based on these variations. Similarly, there are absolutely no grounds for rejecting the common subject matter of stoning to death mentioned in the ahadith just because of these slight variations." (Maulana Abdullah Nana - Stoning To Death In Islam - Islamic Da'wah Academy - Pages 66-67 - Source).
Moreover, the narrators who heard what their predecessors said were not inspired by God, so it is natural that we don't expect them to have remembered everything verbatim.
Allegation 6: Ali Stoned A Pregnant Lady?
This allegation is based on:
"A woman named Shurahah came to 'Ali and confessed that she is pregnant from zina'. 'Ali had her flogged on Thursday and stoned to death on Friday and said: "We flogged in accordance with the Book of God and stoned in accordance with the sunnah of the Messenger of God." (Musnad Ahmad).
So the modernist Muslims questions as to how and why he would have done this? Therefore, stoning isn't part of Islam. Firstly, even if this story is true, this would in no way disprove stoning to be part of Islam. Some have stated this Hadith is weak (Source). This narration has been declared as da'if (weak) by Sheikh Arna'oot (Number 1209, Source). There are also contradictory variations of this Hadith, which puts it in more doubt. Even if we accept it, another Hadith (Musnaf Abdur Razaaq - cited in Haqeeqat-e-Raj'm - Pages 191-92) informs us that it was after the baby was born when she was stoned. So, this is what could have occurred. Moreover, Muhammad himself waited for another pregnant women gave birth & wean the child before stoning the adulterer (refer to Sahih Muslim, Book 17, Number 4206). Imam Nawawi's stated regarding this Hadith:
"A pregnant woman should not be stoned until she gives birth, whether her pregnancy is the result of zina or otherwise. This is agreed upon, lest her foetus be killed. The same applies if her hadd punishment is flogging; a pregnant woman should not be flogged, according to the consensus, until she has given birth." (Saheeh Muslim Bu Sharh Al-Nawawi, 11/202 cited in: Muhammad Saed Abdul-Rahman - Islam: Questions and Answers - Jurisprudence and Islamic Rulings - Transactions - Part 5 - MSA Publication Limited, 2007 - Page 275).
"The punishment to a woman is to be awarded when the baby in her lap is weaned." (Commentary Of: Sahih Muslim, Book 17, Number 4225 - Abdul Hamid Siddiqi's Commentary - Dar Al Arabia - Volume 3 - Chapter DCLXXXIIV - Footnote 2180 - Page 922).
Maududi's commentary - Surah Nur 24:2:
"In the case of a pregnant woman, the flogging will be postponed till the delivery and the complete discharge of blood after childbirth. But if she is to be stoned to death, the punishment will not be given till the child has been weaned."
So, even if Ali did stone a pregnant lady, it would've been unIslamic. The Prophet never stoned a pregnant woman, and this isn't part of Islam.
Allegation 7: A Monkey Got Stoned?
Modernists Muslims refer to this Hadith:
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 188:
"Narrated 'Amr bin Maimun: During the pre-lslamic period of ignorance I saw a she-monkey surrounded by a number of monkeys. They were all stoning it, because it had committed illegal sexual intercourse. I too, stoned it along with them."
So, few modernist Muslims allege that Muslims concocted this Hadith, to make stoning seem more natural. However, this iHadith just gives Amr's perception of what he saw. Imam Hajar lives more information of this story:
"I was in Yemen tending the sheep of my people up upon an elevation. A male monkey came with a female and laid his head on her hand. Then a smaller monkey came and beckoned towards her, so she gently slipped her hand out from under the cheek of the first monkey and followed him. He mated with her while I looked on. Then she returned and gently tried to slip her hand back under the cheek of the first monkey, but he woke up suddenly, smelled her, and cried out.
Then the monkeys gathered round and he began screaming while pointing towards her with his hand. The monkeys went all about and came back with that monkey that I recognized. They dug a pit for the two of them and stoned them both. So I had witnessed stoning being carried out by other than Adam's descendants. It is not necessary that an event that looks like adultery and stoning was really a case of adultery and capital punishment. He merely described it that way because it looked like these things. It does not mean that legal accountability was being applied to animals." (Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani - Fath-ul-Bari - Source).
There's no way Amr could have known the monkeys true intentions. He wasn't a sahaba of the Prophet, but came a generation after him. Whether we believe this hadith or not, this cannot be used as evidence against stoning in Islam. Moreover, a concocted hadith is usually called a maudu hadith. Modernists Muslims have to prove this is maudu instead of blindly assuming it. For more, go here.
Allegation 8: 100 Lashes Abrogates Stoning?
The modernist Muslims bring forth the following Hadith:
Sahih Muslim, Book 17, Number 4218:
"Abu Ishaq Shaibani said: I asked 'Abdullah b. Abu Aufi if Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) awarded (the punishment) of stoning (to death). He said: Yes. I said: After Sura al-Nur was revealed or before that? He said: I do not know."
This hadith is also found in Bukhari. So they conclude from this that all cases of stoning came before Surah Nur 24, and the 100 lashes abrogate this. However, one cannot deduce from this hadith that stoning occurred before Surah Nur was revealed. It shows Abu Aufi did not know the answer to the question. One can visit: (Maulana Abdullah Nana - Stoning To Death In Islam - Islamic Da'wah Academy - Pages 58-65 - Source) for a more thorough refutation of this claim.
Modernist Muslims also claim the above Hadith shows that Abu Aufi doubted that stoning was part of Islam. The Hadith doesn't indicate this; it merely indicates he didn't know the answer to the question. Here's why the narrator asked the question:
"The question was asked in order to find out the exact punishment prescribed for adultery." (Commentary Of: Sahih Muslim, Book 17, Number 4218 - Abdul Hamid Siddiqi's Commentary - Dar Al Arabia - Volume 3 - Chapter DCLXXXIII - Footnote 2177 - Page 920).
Moreover, we've already shown above that Surah Nur was revealed before the stonings took place, which means flogging does not abrogate stoning. Also as shown above, Surah 24:2 refers to flogging the unmarried adulterers, not the married.
Allegation 9: Hadiths Collected Are 200 Years Old:
Consequently, the modernist Muslim concludes by saying the Hadiths cannot be trusted. Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi provides a concise reply:
"It is not correct to say that Hadith was compiled only 200 years after Prophet Muhammad's (peace and blessings be upon him) death because there was a great number of hadiths in circulation during the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). But most of the hadiths were compiled during the 2nd century of Hijrah. Further, the muhaddithun (Arabic for: Hadith scholars) spared no effort to verify the Hadith and distinguish between the sahih (Arabic for: authentic), da'if (Arabic for: weak) and mawdu' (Arabic for: fabricated). Having said this, there has been difference in interpretation with regard to both the Qur'an and Hadith. This is due to many factors including understanding the language and historical contexts and backgrounds. But difference of interpretation cannot be taken as a ground for denying or rejecting the source wholeheartedly." (IslamOnline - Source).
For a more detailed reply to this allegation, go here and here.
Allegation 10: Stoning Is Barbaric:
When other allegations fail, they resort to subjectivity. Whether stoning is considered to be barbaric by modernists or not, this doesn't at all disprove that Islam teaches it. Sadly, modernists Muslims who make this claim are influenced by modern man made laws and appeal to common practice, novelty, emotion etc. It's noteworthy that not long ago, various western countries offered the death penalty for certain actions. For example:
"That is England, upto the early 19th century there were 223 offences, the penalty which was death. These included theft when the value of stolen property was more than 1 shilling, tieting, destroying banks, bridges, or floodgates, offences against administration of justice, offences against public health, offences against public revenue, rape, forcible abduction and other sexual offences. Treason was severely punishable." (A. H. Qasmi - International Encyclopaedia Of Islam - Gyan Publishing House, 2006 - Page 180).
In contrast, Islamic laws are consistent, which include stoning the married adulterer. Here are some reasons why Islam offers the stoning penalty:
Muhmmad Taqi Usmani - Ma'arif Quran - Volume 6 - Page 344:
"Adultery, being a big crime by itself, also brings along with it many other crimes, the result of which is destruction of the entire social order. If the causes of killings and atrocities are probed deeply, the majority of then will appear to be caused due to illegitimate relationship with women."
Also, HIV, Aids and other STD's are caused as a result of adultery, which spread and kill many. The punishment acts as a prevention so none of this occurs. Had this deterrent existed in the past, HIV/Aids may not have killed and spread as much it had done. The argument that condoms can be used isn't strong, because condoms wasn't there until recently. Moreover:
"But condoms do not offer absolute protection against AIDS or the other STDs. Why?
> Condoms sometimes break.
> Condoms can break down in the presence of oil-based products
> Condoms sometimes leak when you take them off
> People sometimes forget to use condoms
> Even people who do use condoms for intercourse often don't use them for oral sex, which, while less risky is not safe." (Ruth K. Westheimer, Pierre A. Lehu - Sex For Dummies - For Dummies, 2006 - Page 272).
"...even the most persistent users of condoms, HOV infection "significant, not complete protection" against transmission of the AIDS virus."1 Two studies of heterosexual couples, with one partner infected and one not, came to the same conclusion. In the investigations, between 16-24% of the HIV-free partners were infected despite their regular use of condoms.2. Even the much-celebrated nomoxynol-9 )N-9) does not appear to be foolproof. In a carefully study of 72 prostitutes, 8 of 31, or 26%, using N-9 became infected with HIV compared to 9 of 41, or 22%, using a placebo." 3. All this should come as little surprise. In tests of pregnancy prevention, conception occurs in some 10-15% of cases even where condoms are consistently used and even more frequently where other methods, including spermicides, are employed."
1.Roger Detels et al., "Sexual Acitivity, Condom Use and HIV-l Serconversion" (Stockhold Conf).
2. Nancy Padian et la., "Male-to-Female Transmission of Human Immunodeficiency Virus," JAMA 258 (1987): 788-90; James J. Goedern, "What is Safe Sex?" NEJM 316 (1987): 1339-42.
3. Joan Kreiss et al., "Efficacy of the Spermicide Nonoxynol-0 (N-9) in Prevening Heterosexual Transmission of HIV" (Stockhold Conf). (William B. Johnston, Kevin R. Hopkins, Hudson Institute - The catastrophe ahead: AIDS and the case for a new public policy - Greenwood Publishing Group - Page 71).
Regardless what protection you have, if Allah wills, you will get STD's. This reminds of the following Hadiths:
"Whenever unlawful sexual intercourse becomes widespread in a society - so much so that they start doing it in the open - plagues and various types of sicknesses will spread amongst them which weren't present in previous generations." (Classed as Sahih by Al-Hakim - Vol. 4, Pg. 540 - cited in: Maulana Abdullah Nana - Stoning To Death In Islam - Islamic Da'wah Academy - Page 77 - Source).
"Whenever fornication will start becoming dominant in a society, death will spread." (Ibn Hajar - Fath Al-Bari - Vol. 10, Pg. 193 - cited in: Ibid [Note: This is a disconnected hadith - cited by Ibn Hajar - Source]).
"Abd Allah ibn 'Umar said, "The Prophet (S) came to us and said, 'O Muhajirun, (emigrants from Makkah to al-Madinah) you may be afflicted by five things; God forbid that you should live to see them. If fornication should become widespread, you should realize that this has never happened without new diseases befalling the people which their forebears never suffered." (Ibn Majah - Kitab Al-Fitan - Hadith 4019 - 2/1332 - cited in: Ibn Kathir - The Signs Before The Day Of Judgement - Dar Al Taqwa Ltd. 1991 - Pages 16-17 [classed by Sheikh Albani as Hasan - Source]. Hadith also in Jami' al-Saghir - classed as Sahih by Albani - Source).
Indeed, the prophecy has come true. Moreover, adultery encourages unfaithfulness to ones spouse. By committing this act, you may have to tell fibs to try and get away with it, and to try and get away with it, you may end up wasting money. We find examples in the world today, sadly. No wonder the omniscient Creator informed us:
Surah Isra 17:32:
"Nor come nigh to adultery: for it is a shameful (deed) and an evil, opening the road (to other evils)."
One can visit (Maulana Abdullah Nana - Stoning To Death In Islam - Islamic Da'wah Academy - Pages 67-94 - Source) for more reasons as to why Islam forbids adultery, and statistics which highlight the negative results of adultery. So, a person would think dozens of times before going behind his/her spouse's back and committing adultery, if the stoning penalty was implemented.
Evidence Islam Teaches Stoning:
The stoning verse was revealed in the Quran, but only it's recitation was abrogated, not the ruling. There are 3 types of abrogation in which the Quran abrogates itself:
Ibn Salama, al-nasikh wa al-mansukh, Cairo, 1966, p.5.
Abrogation of the recited (verse) together with the legal ruling.
Abrogation of the legal ruling without the recited (verse).
Abrogation of the recited (verse) without the legal ruling.
"Abrogated Qur'anic verses fall into three categories. The first is where abrogation affects the two aspects of a Qur'anic text: the ruling, as well the recitation (nask al-hukm wa al-tilawah). In this type of abrogation, the verse is withdrawn from the Qur'anic text and its ruling is no longer valid.
The second catagory of abrogation affects the ruling of a verse but not its wording (nask al-hukm duna al-tilawah). This means that the verse remains part of the Qur'anic text and is recited. However, the ruling it conveys is no longer in operation.
The third category of abrogation affects the wording of a verse but not its ruling. This means that, although the verse is no longer part of the Qur'anic text, its ruling remains applicable." (Abdullah Saeed - Interpreting The Qur'an: Towards A Contemporary Approach - Routledge, 2006 - Pages 79-80).
Similar thing is mentioned in: (Abbas Jaffer & Masuma Jaffer - Quranic Sciences - ICAS Press - Pages 153-156). The 3rd type of abrogation applied to the verse of stoning. It's recitation was abrogated, but the ruling was still binding.
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 816:
"Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: 'Umar said, "I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, "We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book," and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses or pregnancy or confession." Sufyan added, "I have memorized this narration in this way." 'Umar added, "Surely Allah's Apostle carried out the penalty of Rajam, and so did we after him."
الراوي زيد بن ثابت: قال زيد كنا نقرأ والشيخ والشيخة . . فقال مروان أفلا نجعله في المصحف قال لا ألا ترى أن الشابين الثيبين يرجمان قال وقال ذكروا ذلك وفينا عمر بن الخطاب رضي الله عنه قال أنا أشفيكم من ذاك قال قلنا كيف قال آتي النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فأذكر كذا وكذا فإذا ذكر الرجم أقول يا رسول الله أكتبني آية الرجم قال فأتيته فذكرته قال فذكر آية الرجم قال فقال يا رسول الله أكتبني آية الرجم قال لا أستطيع ذاك
"Narrated Zaid Bin Thabit: we used to read: "The old man and the old woman." Marwan said: "Shouldn't we write it down as part of the written Quran?" He replied: "Don't you see that the two young married (adulterers) are to be stoned?" And Umar Bin Al Khattab - may Allah be pleased with him was with us then, so he said: "I will get the answer." We both said: "How?" He said: "From the Prophet, and I will mention such and such to him, and when I get to stoning, I will say: Oh Messenger of Allah, allow me to write the stoning verse." He (Umar) said: "O Messenger of Allah, let me write the stoning verse. He said: "I can't." (Sunan Al-Baihaqi - Classed Sahih By Sheikh Albani In: Silsilat Al-Sahiha, 6/974 - Source. Also In Sunan Nasai, 3046).
Baihaqi's footnote of the above Hadith is:
في هذا وما قبله دلالة على أن آية الرجم حكمها ثابت ، وتلاوتها منسوخة ، وهذا مما لا أعلم فيه يه خل
"With this & what was earlier, this indicates the ruling of the stoning verse is permanent and it's recitation abrogated, and this is something not known to be disputed." (Source).
The reason the Prophet didn't allow Umar to write it down because it's recitation was abrogated. Ibn Hajar gives us a hadith:
فقال عمر : لما نزلت أتيت النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقلت أكتبها ؟ فكأنه كره ذلك , فقال عمر : ألا ترى أن الشيخ إذا زنى ولم يحصن جلد , وأن الشاب إذا زنى وقد أحصن رجم
"Umar said: "When this verse came down I approached the Prophet peace be upon him so I asked him: Should I write it down? It is as if he hated that. Then Umar said: "Cant you see that if the old man if he commits adultery he does not get the whip, and that if the young man if he commits adultery he gets stoned?" (Ibn Hajar - Fathul Bari - Hadith Commentary Of Bukhari, 6441 - 1407 AH/1986 - Source).
This Hadith (similar wording) is also in: (Musnad Umar, 2/870 - Classed Sahih & Muhalla Bi Al-Athar, 11/235 - Classed Sahih By Ibn Hazm - Source).
The verse of stoning wasn't supposed to stay in the Quran, which is why the Prophet didn't want it in there. There are a few opinions as to what the verse actually was. The opinions could be read here and here. What is the wisdom behind this type of abrogation? To test Muslims as to whether or not they would follow the sunnah and the Quran. Both are equally authoritative in terms of law, and this type of abrogation tests those who claim to be true Muslims (i.e. Quran only group).
We've already seen from Sahih Muslim above that Islam teaches stoning. More hadiths are:
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 83, Number 17:
"Narrated 'Abdullah: Allah's Apostle said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims."
Sahih Muslim, Book 16, Number 4152:
"'Abdullah (b. Mas'ud) reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: It is not permissible to take the life of a Muslim who bears testimony (to the fact that there is no god but Allah, and I am the Messenger of Allah, but in one of the three cases: the married adulterer, a life for life, and the deserter of his Din (Islam), abandoning the community."
"Narrated By Aisha: The Prophet (pbuh) said: Shedding blood of a Muslim man who declares 'there is no God except the One God and that Muhammad is a messenger of God', is not permitted except in one of three cases: A man who commits fornication after having been married, for such a man shall be stoned to death; A man who declares and promotes rebellion against God and His messenger, for such a man shall be killed or crucified or sent into exile from his land; or if he kills a [crimeless] soul, for he shall be killed in retaliation." (Targhib Wa-Al-Tarhib - 3/259 - Isnad is Sahih/Hassan - Source).
روي أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال: لا يحل دم امرئ مسلم يشهد أن لا إله إلا الله وأن محمدا رسول الله إلا بإحدى ثلاث رجل زنى بعد إحصان فإنه يرجم ورجل خرج محاربا لله ورسوله فإنه يقتل أو يصلب أو ينفى من الأرض أو يقتل نفسا فيقتل بها
"Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin: The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) Said: The blood of a Muslim man who testifies that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle should not lawfully be shed except only for one of three reasons: a man who committed fornication after marriage, in which case he should be stoned; one who goes forth to fight with Allah and His Apostle, in which case he should be killed or crucified or exiled from the land; or one who commits murder for which he is killed." (Abu Dawud - 4353 - Classed as Sahih By Sheikh Al Albani - Source).
Hadiths which are similar to the above one could be found in [Musnad Ahmad - 6/64 (Classed as Sahih By Ahmed Shaker - Source) & Classed Sahih By Sheikh Arna'oot, Numbers 3621 & 4065 - Source] & [Tirmidhi - 1402 (Classed as Sahih By Sheikh Al Albani - Source)].
الشيخ والشيخة إذا زنيا فارجموهما البتة نكالا من الله ورسوله
"Narrated Zaid Bin Thabit: The old man and the old woman, if they commit adultery then they stone both of them as an exemplary punishment from Allah and his Messenger." (Ithaf Al-Khirah Al-Maharah - 6/257 - Isnad Classed As Trustworthy By Busayri - Source).
عَنْ الْعَجْمَاءِ، قَالَتْ: سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، يَقُولُ:الشَّيْخُ وَالشَّيْخَةُ إِذَا زَنَيَا، فَارْجُمُوهُمَا الْبَتَّةُ بِمَا قَضَيَا مِنَ اللَّذَّةِ
"Narrated by 'Ajma, she said: I heard that Messenger of Allah say; 'When a married man or woman commit adultery stone them both to death.'" (Tabarani Kabeer, Hadith 20321 - cited here).
Moreover, even more hadiths show us Muhammad taught stoning, and they can be viewed here. An example of the Prophet implementing stoning...
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 63, Number 195:
"A man from the tribe of Bani Aslam came to the Prophet while he was in the mosque and said, "I have committed illegal sexual intercourse." The Prophet turned his face to the other side. The man turned towards the side towards which the Prophet had turned his face, and gave four witnesses against himself. On that the Prophet called him and said, "Are you insane?" (He added), "Are you married?" The man said, 'Yes." On that the Prophet ordered him to be stoned to the death in the Musalla (a praying place). When the stones hit him with their sharp edges and he fled, but he was caught at Al-Harra and then killed."
Similarly, there are more example of Muhammad stoning married adulterers. One can check (Maulana Abdullah Nana - Stoning To Death In Islam - Islamic Da'wah Academy - Pages 23-27 - Source) for references of other examples of stonings. These are classed as tawatur (consecutive) hadiths.
Finally, let us appeal to scholarship.
"The majority of theologians, the four Imams (Abu Hanifa, Shafii, Malik and Ahmed bin Hambal) and other learned jurists hold the order for stoning for death still exists." (A. H. Qasmi - International Encyclopaedia Of Islam - Gyan Publishing House, 2006 - Page 288).
"The command to kill the adulterer by stoning is reported by almost all books of Hadith (Muslim, Abu Dawood, Ibn Majah, Baihawi, Ahmad). This, there is no difference of opinion amongst Muslim scholars over this issue that married adulterers must be stoned to death." (M M Akbar - Authenticity Of Quran - DA'WA BOOKS - Page 240).
"Ibn Qudamah says: stoning is obligatory upon whoever commits adultery after having being married. This is the statement of all the people of knowledge from the Companions and the Successors and those who came after then in every land and age. No one ever disputed this expect the Khawarij." (Jim McCrudden - Islam FAQ - 2008 - Page 134).
"The hadd punishment of stoning for a married person who commits zina is one of the matters that is determined by the Qur'aan and Sunnah and there is no room for ijtihaad or personal opinion." (Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa'imah, 22/48-49 cited in: Muhammad Saed Abdul-Rahman - Islam: Questions and Answers - Jurisprudence and Islamic Rulings - Transactions - Volume 29 - Part 8 - MSA Publication Limited, 2004 - Page 179).
Majority hold the view that for the married adulterer, stoning & flogging isn't advisable.
"There is a difference of opinion amongst the jurists as to the precise nature of the punishment prescribed for adultery. There is however no difference of opinion that the punishment prescribed for married persons is stoning to death and for unmarried persons it is one hundred lashes. The difference is whether it is essential to combine lashing with stoning as recorded in the hadith for married persons and lashing with exile for unmarried offenders. Imam Ahmad, Dawud Zahiri and Ishaq b. Rahawai, on the authority of the ahadith recorded above, assert that on case of married persons there are two punishments, i.e. lashing and stoning,, and above both should be awarded.
The other jurists who form an overwhelming majority are of the opinion that it is not advisable to aware two punishments together as it was not done by the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) himself, but only in once case and that too under exceptional circumstances. It is narrated on the authority of Jabir b. 'Abdullah that a person committed adultery, and the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) punished him with one hundred lashes , but, later on, it was found out that the offender was married one and then the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) awarded him the punishment of stoning to death." (Commentary Of: Sahih Muslim, Book 17, Number 4192 - Abdul Hamid Siddiqi's Commentary - Dar Al Arabia - Volume 3 - Chapter DCLXXX - Footnote 2154 - Page 911)
This same point that majority held the view of only stoning is stated by Imam Nawawi (Imam Nawawi - Sharh Saheeh Muslim - cited here).
Further readings:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/46295748/Refuting-Modernist-Muslims-On-Stoning-Rajm
http://letmeturnthetables.blogspot.com/2009/08/myth-of-qurans-lost-verse-about-stoning.html
http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/the_quranic_verse_on_stoning
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503545902
http://www.kalemasawaa.com/vb/t4717.html
And every man's work have WE fasten to his neck; and on the Day of Resurrection WE shall bring out for him a book which he will find wide open. It will be said to him, ‘Read thy book. Sufficient is thy own soul as a reckoner against thee this day.’ He who follows the right way follows it only for the good of his own soul; and he who goes astray, goes astray only to his own loss. And no bearer of burden shall bear the burden of another. And WE shall never punish until WE have sent a Messenger. S. 17:13-15
Mr read whole Quran and the Quran includes those punishments to which you are making fun of don't act like those hypocrites which were in time of HAZRAT MUHAMMAD SAW
