This was taken from a post on SunniForum.com by user “ridhwan”.
Assalam Alaikum
Just had this reply to a question I asked to the Ulema in regards to Rajm from a few years back.
It was in reply to a modernist who denied Rajm and was relating to works by the deviant (translator & commentator of the Quran) Muhammad Asad.
Muhammad Asad, The Message of The Qur’an (Gibraltar, 1980). l edn. Translated in chaste, idiomatic English by a convert from Judaism to Islam. However, it contains some serious departures from the orthodox viewpoint on a number of Qur’anic statements. Asad appears to be reluctant to accept the literal meaning of some Qur’anic verses. For example, he doubts the throwing of Ibrahim into fire, Jesus speaking in the cradle; refers to Khidr and Dhulqarnain as mythical figures and expresses unconventional views on abrogation (Naskh) theory
—
Respected Brother,
Assalâmu’alaikum Warahmatullâhi Wabarakâtuh
We acknowledge receipt of your queries and we appreciate your concern. Our reply follows hereunder: -
It is true that the rejection of Rajm was a salient feature of the Khawaarij and some Mu’tazilites. Although there are some factions of the Khawaarij that are existent today and the Mu’tazilites are almost dormant, there always have been a few liberals that come up with fresh ideas.
This scribe can be from the Khawaarij, the liberals, but he is definitely as you say a confused person. This concise response however, will only be of benefit to the confused person, not someone who has adopted a certain stance, cooks up a history, and then presents them as facts. We will now highlight some of the points of distortion and respond accordingly with the help of Allâh Ta’âlâ.
He says after quoting from the Message of The Qur’an by Muhammad Asad: So, obviously, Muhammad Asad considers this law of Allâh to be applicable to both what is called fornication AND what is called adultery in the West.
Response: Muhammad Asad’s word is as good as yours, he is not an authority in Shari’ah.
He says: “So whose word should we take? The Qur’an’s or other sources?”
Response: This stereotyped attitude emerges from emotionalism, because of the stern stance that Shari’ah has adopted against adultery. On the contrary, the Qur`ân says:
And the male thief and the female thief cut off their hands as a recompense for that which they committed, a punishment by way of example from Allah. An Allah is All-Powerful, All-Wise. [ Surah Al-Ma’idah ]
So if someone steals a needle, the Hadîth says that you will not cut his hand because it is not of a certain value and furthermore if the prescribed amount as explained in the Hadîth is stolen, then the Hadîth says that the hand will be cut at the wrist, not the whole hand as is implied in the Qur’an.
So whose word should we take? The Qur’an’s or other sources?
The Qur`ân says: Forbidden to you (for marriage) are:, your foster mothers who suckled you, your foster milk sucking sisters. All others are lawful for you, provided you seek (them in marriage) with dowry.[ Surah An-Nisaa’: 23-24 ]
The Hadîth says that it is not permissible for the husband of the wet nurse to get married to anyone whom she had breast-fed.
So whose word should we take? The Qur`ân’s or other sources?
The Qur`ân says: Forbidden for you (for marriage) are: … and two sisters in wedlock at the same time, …All others are lawful for you. [ Surah An-Nisaa’: 23-24 ]
The Hadîth says that you should not combine the aunt and the niece in wedlock.
So whose word should we take? The Qur`ân ’s or other sources?
The Qur`ân says: O you who believe! When you intend to offer Salaah. If you are in a state of Janabah (i.e. sexual discharge), purify yourselves thoroughly (i.e. have a bath). But if you are ill or on a journey, or any one of you comes after answering the call of nature, or you have been in contact with women and you find no water, then perform tayammum. [ Surah Al-Ma’idah: 6 ]
The Hadîth says that a lady cannot read Salaah in the condition of menstruation. So whose word should we take? The Qur`ân’s or other sources?
If your response might be in compliance with the above type of analogies then we would like to inform you that these were the practices of the Azaariqah sect of the Khawaarij. Also for your information, they used this same type of analogy to reject the punishment of Rajm.
He says: It can easily be seen to be the product of fiqhi controversies in the first century.
Response: This assertion is merely to accommodate your concoction, giving the impression that it was a controversy of the Sahabah radhiallâhu ‘anhum. Yes it is the product of a controversy that raised its head in the time of Hadhrat ‘Ali radhiallâhu ‘anhu in the prophesized form of the Khawaarij.
Rajm was established in the time of Rasulullâh sallallâhu alaihi wasallam and he himself also acted upon it. It is narrated by so many Sahabah radhiallâhu ‘anhum from Rasulullâh sallallâhu alaihi wasallam that to deny it will be calling night, day, and day, night.
Ahaadeeth
The Sahabah radhiallâhu ‘anhum who narrate it from Rasulullâh sallallâhu alaihi wasallam are as follows:-
‘Umar radhiallâhu ‘anhu narrates Rasulullâh sallallâhu alaihi wasallam making Rajm which is reported on the authority of Bukhari.
‘Uthmaan ibnu ‘Affaan radhiallâhu ‘anhu narrates that Rasulullâh sallallâhu alaihi wasallam made the blood of an adulterer and stoning him halaal. This is reported on the authority of Nasai and Darimi.
‘Ali radhiallâhu ‘anhu narrates Rajm being the Sunnah of Rasulullâh sallallâhu alaihi wasallam narrated on the authority of Bukhari and Musnad Ahmad.
‘A’ishah radhiallâhu ‘anha narrates the law of an adulterer is stoning which is narrated on the authority of Muslim, Abu Dawood and Hakim.
‘Abdullah ibnu Mas’ood radhiallâhu ‘anhu narrates the permissibility of the blood of an adulterer which is reported by Bukhari and Muslim.
Abu Umamah ibnu Sahl radhiallâhu ‘anhu narrates the stoning of Ma’iz radhiallâhu ‘anhu which is reported by ‘Abdur Razzaq.
Anas ibnu Malik radhiallâhu ‘anhu reports the permissibility of the blood of an adulterer which is reported on the authority of Tabrani as is mentioned in Majma’uz Zawaaid. He also reports Rasulullâh sallallâhu alaihi wasallam, Abu Bakr radhiallâhu ‘anhu and ‘Umar radhiallâhu ‘anhu stoning a person which is reported by Abu Ya’laa as is mentioned in Majma’ and Matalib- ul-‘Aliyah.
Jabir ibnu ‘Abdullah radhiallâhu ‘anhu narrates the incident of Ma’iz which is reported by Bukhari. He also narrates the incident of the stoning of the Gamidi lady which is reported by Hakim.. He also reports the stoning of a person which is reported by Abu Dawood.
‘Abdullah ibnu Abi Aufaa radhiallâhu ‘anhu narrates Rasulullâh sallallâhu alaihi wasallam stoning someone which is reported by Bukhari and Muslim.
Abu Hurairah radhiallâhu ‘anhu narrates the incident of the stoning of Ma’iz radhiallâhu ‘anhu which is reported by Bukhari and Muslim. He also narrates the incident of ‘Aseef which is reported by Bukhari and Muslim. He also reports the stoning of an unnamed person which is reported by Tabrani as is mentioned in Majma’.
‘Abdullah ibnu ‘Abbas radhiallâhu ‘anhu narrates the Khutbah of ‘Umar radhiallâhu ‘anhu wherein he narrates about Rajm which is reported by Bukhari and Muslim.
‘Ubaadah ibnu Samit radhiallâhu ‘anhu narrates the stoning of an adulterer which is reported by Muslim.
Jabir ibnu Samurah reports the stoning of Ma’iz radhiallâhu ‘anhu which is reported by Muslim.
Abu Sa’eed Khudri radhiallâhu ‘anhu reports the incident of Ma’iz radhiallâhu ‘anhu which is reported by Muslim.
‘Imraan ibnu Husain radhiallâhu ‘anhu reports the incident of the stoning of the Gamidi lady which is reported by Muslim. He also narrates about Rasulullâh sallallâhu alaihi wasallam stoning a person which is reported by Ahmad.
Buraidah ibnul Husaib radhiallâhu ‘anhu reports the incident of Ma’iz radhiallâhu ‘anhu which is reported by Muslim. He also reports the stoning of the Gamidi lady which is reported by Muslim.
Nu’aim ibnu Hazzaal radhiallâhu ‘anhu narrates the incident of the stoning of Ma’iz which is reported by Abu Dawood.
Hazzaal Al-Aslami radhiallâhu ‘anhu narrates the stoning of Ma’iz which is reported by Hakim.
Nasr ibnu Dahr reports the incident of Ma’iz which is reported by Ahmad and Darimi.
An unknown Sahabi also reports the incident of Ma’iz which is reported in Majma’uz-Zawaa’id and Musnad Ahmad.
Abu Barzah radhiallâhu ‘anhu narrates the incident of Ma’iz which is reported by Ahmad and Tabrani as is mentioned in Majama’uz Zawaaid.
Al-Lahlaaj radhiallâhu ‘anhu narrates the stoning of an unnamed person which is reported by Abu Dawood and Ahmad.
Zaid ibnu Thabit radhiallâhu ‘anhu narrates the stoning of an adulterer which is reported by Hakim.
Ubaiyy ibnu Ka’b narrates the stoning of an adulterer which is reported by Baihaqi and Hakim.
‘Ajmaa radhiallâhu ‘anha narrates the stoning of an adulterer which is reported by Hakim and Tabrani as is mentioned in Talkhees.
This is a casual list of the Sahabah who report stoning from Rasulullâh sallallâhu alaihi wasallam and we have not made an effort to include reported stoning by the Sahabah themselves.
As-Suyooti rahmatullâhi alaih and Al-Kattani rahmatullâhi alaih have claimed that the Ahaadeeth narrating the stoning of Ma’iz radhiallâhu ‘anhu alone are of the Mutawaatir category and they have listed eighteen Sahâbah from whom it is narrated.
Ijmaa’
1. The stoning is also established by Ijmaa’ of the Sahabah which reported by ‘Umar radhiallâhu ‘anhu in the narration of Bukhari on the authority of ibnu ‘Abbas radhiallâhu ‘anhu wherein he says that:Rasulullâh sallallâhu alaihi wasallam made Rajm and we made Rajm after him
.. and commenting on this Mullah ‘Ali Qari rahmatullâhi alaih says: This statement indicates that Ijmaa was enacted after him (Rasulullâh sallallâhu alaihi wasallam.)
2. There is Ijmaa’ of all four Madhaahib on the stoning of an adulterer.
Ijmaa’ (consensus) of the Ummah on the stoning of the adulterer has been recorded by:
ibnu ‘Abdul Barr (he also quotes it being the consensus of the Sahabah and the Mahadditheen)
Ibnul-Munthir.
Ibnu Hazm.
Qadhi ‘Iyaadh. (he also quotes it being the consensus of the Ummah in word and practice).
Ibnu Battaal (he also quotes it being the consensus of the Sahâbah).
An-Nawaawi (he quotes it being the consensus of the Ummah in word and practice).
Abu Bakr Al-Jassaas and many others.
After all these quotations a person is better off doubting himself in the understanding of this Shar’i Law instead of being bold in the face of the Sahabah and the Mujtahideen.
He says: “There is no reasonable explanation in sight as to why”
Response: ‘Allamah Zurqaani rahmatullâhi alaih responds to this allegation saying that having no reason for the removal of this aayah from the Qur`ân does not prove that this was not in the Qur`ân. If a person uses analogy like this he will be claiming that ignorance is one of the forms of acquiring knowledge and no sane person is of this opinion.
What we are concerned about here is that this was part of the Qur`ân and this is proven by authentic Ahaadeeth that will be presented further on. There are reasons given by some Scholars as to why this Aayah was possibly removed from the Qur’an either by using narrations or by assumption. For obvious reasons, we will only confine ourselves to those who used Ahaadeeth.
Ibnu Hajar rahmatullâhi alaih says that there is a narration reported by Hakim on the authority of Zaid ibnu Thabit radhiallâhu ‘anhu that he and Sa’eed ibnul ‘Aas were writing the Mushaf and they passed this Aayah, so Zaid said: I heard Rasulullâh sallallâhu alaihi wasallam say: “The elderly man and elderly lady, stone them without doubt”.
So ‘Umar radhiallâhu ‘anhu said: When this Aayah was revealed I came to Rasulullâh sallallâhu alaihi wasallam and I asked: Should I write it? It seemed that he (Rasulullâh sallallâhu alaihi wasallam) did not like the idea, so ‘Umar radhiallâhu ‘anhu says: Do you not see that if an elderly man fornicates whilst he never married and on the other hand if a youngster commits adultery and he is married he will be stoned.
Commenting on this Ibnu Hajar rahmatullâhi alaih says that we understand from this Hadîth that this Aayah was not written because the practice is not on the apparent meaning.
Ibnu Hajar also mentions another narration of reported by ibnu-Durais that ‘Umar radhiallâhu ‘anhu addressed the people saying: “Don’t doubt Rajm because it is true and I had the desire to write it in the Mushaf so I asked Ubayy ibnu Ka’b, and he replied: “Do you not remember that I wanted to ask Rasulullâh sallallâhu alaihi wasallam to recite it for me, then you struck me on my chest and you said: Do you want to ask him (Rasulullâh sallallâhu alaihi wasallam) to recite the Aayah of Rajm for you while they are mounting, like how they mount donkeys”.
Commenting on this ibnu Hajar rahmatullâhi alaih says that the narrators in the chain are reliable and in this Hadîth there is an indication to why the recitation was abrogated and that is because of differences.
Although these two Ahadeeth are sound for extracting law from them (which are a good enough authority for all those who have an elementary knowledge of Hadîth), they might not be palatable to some whose opinion has no credibility, but we repeat that the most you can claim is that there is no apparent reason for the removal of the Aayah, not that it wasn’t there.
He says: “Notice that both the versions talk about people who will object to the penalty of stoning”
Response: We will rephrase your deduction because it is not supporting the structure of your analogy. It should read: “Rather the opposition in question arose out of much later legal controversies about the penalty for adultery,” because the basis for them rejecting the punishment is that it is not found in the Qur`ân. So this objection can be co-existent with the traditions as well. There is no reason for implying that these Ahaadeth were coined.
The Khawaaarij do not accept Ijmaa (consensus) and neither do they accept narrations unless they reach the degree of Tawaatur (i.e. such an amount of people narrate it that it is not possible for it to be forged.) For detailed discussions on the authority and infallibility of Ijmaa’ you can refer to the books on Usool-ul-Fiqh.
He says: “Apparently, this objection was met with increasing force as time passed, as we can see by comparing the two versions.”
Response: This is again another figment of your imagination. On what basis did you make this, the first and that, the second version? In fact we can prove quite the opposite. These two versions are in reality from one origin and the difference in the variations is because one of the narrators, Sufyaan, did not memorize it well from his teacher Zuhri rahmatullâhi alaih.
In a narration quoted by Humaidi in his Musnad, Sufyaan says: We came to meet Zuhri at the residence of ibnul-Jawaaz and Zuhri said: If you wish I could narrate twenty Ahaadeeth for you, and if you wish I could mention the Hadîth of Saqeefah to you. (Sufyaan says) I was the youngest from amongst us so I wished that he does not narrate it (i.e. the Hadîth of Saqeefah) because of its length. The group said: Narrate the Hadîth of Saqeefah! So Zuhri narrated it from ‘Ubaidullah bin ‘Utbah bin Mas’ood from ibnu ‘Abbas from ‘Umar, and I memorized a few aspects then Ma’mar narrated the rest to me”.
This portion which he had heard from Ma’mar is also mentioned in the Musnad of Humaidi wherein Humaidi says that he heard from Sufyaan who says that he heard from Ma’mar who heard from Zuhri who in turn narrates from ‘Ubaidullah who says that I heard ‘Umar ibnul Khattaab on the pulpit saying: “..and from amongst those things which Allâh Ta’âlâ had revealed was the Aayah of Rajm”. Sufyaan says: “I heard it from Zuhri at length and I had memorized a few things and this is from those aspects which I did not memorize that day”.
So, instead of shooting arrows in the dark, we have found an explicit reason for the difference in the variations. Although Sufyan is a reliable narrator but in this instance, he admits that he did not memorize it well. He also indicates the same in the narration of Bukhari wherein he says: “this is how I memorized”
Malik (in his Muwatta, Ahmad, ibnu Hibban, Darimi, Ikhtilaaful Hadîth of Shafi’I), Ma’mar (in Musnad Ahmad, Tirmidhi, and Humaidi in his Musnad), Salih (in Bukhari), Yunus (in Muslim, Abu ‘Awaanah in his Musnad and Nasai), Hushaim (in Abu Dawood and ibnu Hibban), ‘Abdullah ibnu Hazm (in Al-Kubra of Nasai), ‘Uquail (in Al-Kubraa of Nasai), all the students of Zuhri narrate it with the words “amongst what he revealed was the verse of Rajm”.
Furthermore Malik, Hushaim, and Salih narrate the words “we do not find the verse of Rajm”.
The words: “the penalty of Rajm is applicable in the book of God to ..” are narrated by the following students of Zuhri: Malik, Salih, Yunus, Abdullah ibnu Hazm and ‘Uqail.
In short, all these students of Zuhri mention a verse of Rajm, also that Rasulullâh sallallâhu alaihi wasallam, Hadhrat Abu Bakr radhiallâhu ‘anhu and ‘Umar radhiallâhu ‘anhu did rajm, that there will be group of people in the future who will oppose it and the people who reject this Aayah will be astray.
Ya’qoob ibnu Shaibah says that Ahmad ibnu ‘Abbas says that Yahya ibnu Ma’een says: “No students of Zuhri are more reliable than Malik, then Salih ibnu Kaisaan, then Ma’mar, then Yunus”.
Abu Hatim says: “The most reliable narrators of Zuhri are Malik and Ibnu ‘Uyainah”.
There are also sufficient narrations of the A’immah of Jarh-Wat-Ta’deel (those who source the reliability of narrators) stating that Sufyan is a very reliable narrator like the one previously mentioned but the point here is to show that these narrators are individual authorities yet they are all narrating the variations with the extras. It would have been very difficult to counter such a number of reliable narrators from Zuhri with Sufyaan alone on the one side, but nevertheless we have clear-cut admission from Sufyaan that he did not memorize well.
However, by asserting that as time went by, these narrators started cooking up more concoctions to suit their fancy is actually accusing every narrator from the time of Bukhari rahmatullâhi alaih right up to ‘Umar radhiallâhu ‘anhu of fabricating lies to Rasulullâh sallallâhu alaihi wasallam and only a bereft soul is bold enough to be a defendant, up against these Imams on the Day of Judgement.
He says: “Nevertheless the supporters of the stoning penalty won the day, the reason is not hard to find”
Response: Yes the reason is not hard to find:
The profuse amount of Ahaadeeth regarding it dispels all doubt.
All the A’immah Mujtahideen accepted it then undoubtedly we accept.
Ijmaa of the Sahaabah, Fuqahaa and the Muhadditheen is a means of conviction for us.
He says: “At the same time many trusting muslims were misled by the traditions which used the authority of ‘Umar and then the Prophet and then the book of God to support the stoning penalty”.
Response: We have already enumerated the amount of students of Zuhri who had narrated this. Which fabricator of Hadîth did you find in any of the chains of narrators, or do you have a problem with any of the Muhadditheen who have narrated this in their Books? Do you have a problem with Bukhari?!!!
The trusting Muslims were not misled but rather they were convinced by the overwhelming number of Sahabah radhiallâhu ‘anhu who narrate stoning from Rasulullâh sallallâhu alaihi wasallam. They have reason and proof for accepting these while others choose to follow their emotions and reject authentic Ahadeeth which as a whole, give the benefit of Tawaatur.
He says: “Then some scholars came up with concepts of mansukh al-tilawah”
Response: Again your analogy has to be restructured. The Scholars did not come up with concepts to accommodate some fabrication, but rather these Ahaadeeth were the basis for them recognizing this principle and because of the demands of the authenticity of these Ahadeeth, and the practice of the people accordingly, they understood that something can be mansukhut-tilaawah and not mansukhul-‘amal. This is how the Scholars work, they have proof for their principles.
On the other hand, after your thorough research you found that these Ahaadeeth were getting more and more saucier as time went by, you couldn’t understand why the Scholars were compelled to recognize this principle.
He says: “The results of these earlier generation of Muslim researchers are taken by many Muslims as reliable enough but there is also a feeling buried in the Muslim psyche that these results, like the results of any science are subject to revision”.
Response: Maybe this is a doubt that lingers in your psyche but all those whose opinion is credible are unanimous that the conclusions that were drawn by the Muhadditheen, the like of Shu’bah rahmatullâhi alaih, Zuhri rahmatullâhi alaih, Bukhari rahmatullâhi alaihi, Abu Hatim rahmatullâhi alaih and other Huffaaz of Hadîth are undoubtedly accepted and we are not willing to trade them for the revisions of simpletons like yourself.
Yes the results of SCIENCE are subject to revision because of its inconsistency, but this does not apply to any science, especially Hadîth, unless you can prove that you have more knowledge than Bukhari and Muslim just as a chemist or doctor can prove that they have more knowledge than Louis Pasteur or Marie Curie, or that you know some Ahaadeeth which would have compelled the like of Bukhari to travel to you.
You cannot label whatever you feel as a science, then paste your western brainwashed principles on it.
This science of Hadîth is such that we can be rest assured that the further we are from the Golden Era of Prophethood, the more our retrogression. We therefore choose to follow these Great Huffaaz upon whom we trust for preserving, sorting and presenting the Ahaadeeth to us. Islâm has seen thousands of Muhadditheen and Fuqahaa but none of them have come to conclusions like yourself and you can show us nothing that says you are more learned than they are.
Whose word should we take yours or theirs?
He says: “I see nothing wrong with going against the traditional ruling on Rajm!”
Response: We invite you to convert or revert to the Ahlus-Sunnah wal Jamaa’ah.
Ibnu Hazm rahmatullâhi alaih says: All the Azaariqah who are the followers of Nafi’ ibnul Azraq are of the opinion that Rajm has no basis, and they cut the hand of the thief from the shoulder and they are of the opinion that a woman in menstruation should read Salaah and fast.
Shahrastani rahmatullâhi alaih says that “the major denominations of the Khawaarij are six: “The Azaariqah,..”
He further says: “The Bid’ah of the Azaariqah are eight: and the fourth is that they don’t view Rajm as a punishment because it is not mentioned in the Qur`ân and neither do they view punishment of one who accuses men of adultery in contrast to the lady who is accused of adultery”.
He says: “It is not giving the other sources of Islâm their true place that can create problems”.
Response: A good example is rejecting Ijmaa’ and Tawaatur.
He says: “However, even many of the ahadith that are classified as sahih are subject to much greater doubt than is generally believed”.
Response: Your emotionalism in one aspect of Shari’ah has cost you a lot. First you were forced to reject Tawaatur and Ijmaa by saying: I see nothing wrong with going against the traditional ruling on Rajm!!”
Now you are compelled to even doubt Sahih Ahaadeeth!! I am sure that you are now in a qualified position to explain to us the verse: “Have you seen him who takes his own lust as his deity? And Allâh Ta’âlâ knowing (him as such), led him astray, and sealed his hearing and his heart, and put a cover on his sight. Who then will guide him after Allah? Will you not then take heed?”[ Surah Al-Jathiyah: 23 ]
This doubt that you have created in the Sahih Ahaadeeth, who has this doubt? Who is going to do us the kind favor of sorting them out? You!!
He says: “To believe this one, one would HAVE to believe that ahadith can abrogate the Qur`ân? Which is not the case”.
Response: In the case of Rajm one does not have to believe that the Hadîth can abrogate the Qur`ân because all the proofs establishing Rajm simultaneously prove that Rasulullâh sallallâhu alaihi wasallam, the Sahâbah radhiallâhu ‘anhum, the Fuqahaa and the Muhadditheen rahmatullâhi alaihim understood that this Aayah in Surah-An-Nur only refers to the fornicator. Whose understanding of the Qur`ân should we take? Theirs or yours! Some new understanding dawned solely upon you after fourteen hundred years of the practice of the Ummah on this law.
If this too is not palatable for some, then Allamah Sarakhsi rahmatullâhi alaih explains that because of the Ahaadeeth of Umar radhiallâhu ‘anhu, (and Ubayy ibnu Ka’b, Zaid ibnu Thabit, ‘Ajmaa’ radhiallâhu ‘anhum) which inform us of the Aayah that was in the Qur`ân, we will call this abrogation of the Qur`ân by the Qur`ân, or it can be explained in this way that the Aayah in Suratun-Nisaa’ which tells us of house-arresting them is only confined to a certain time which is “until Allâh Ta’âlâ makes way for them”
.. and Rasulullâh sallallâhu alaihi wasallam then explained in the Hadîth which is reported by Muslim from ‘Ubaadah ibnu Thabit radhiallâhu ‘anhu: “Take from me! Take from me! Allâh Ta’âlâ has made a way for them, (for) the fornicator with the fornicator a hundred lashes and banishment for a year and (for) the adulterer with the adulterer a hundred lashes and stoning”, so this is mere explanation of a law which is broadly mentioned in the Qur`ân (as is the case with Salaah and Zakaah).
Ibnu Hajar rahmatullâhi alaih says that what is unacceptable is abrogation of the Qur`ân by Sunnah if the Sunnah is related to us by a single narration, but as for a Sunnah which is coming down to us by many well-known narrations than there is no difference of opinion that abrogation can take place. This is also if we say that this is abrogation, otherwise this is merely exclusion of the married person (by these numerous Ahadeeth).
He says: “In the case of Rajm, the Qur’anic term is very clear. The ahadith supporting rajm contradict that. Therefore, the Qur`ân must be accepted and the ahadith concerning ‘zina’ must be rejected”.
Response: This will only apply if the Hadîth is not Mutawaatir and if Rajm is based on Hadîth only. Rajm is mentioned in an overwhelming number of Ahaadeeth (as was enumerated before). All the Sahabah understood that Rajm was binding on the adulterer (as was explained before). All the Fuqahaa and the Muhadditheen and the Ahlus-Sunnah wal Jamaa’ah understood the same. They had this same Qur`ân in front of them with this same Aayah in it. They saw Rasulullâh sallallâhu alaihi wasallam ordering the stoning of an adulterer and they themselves stoned the adulterer.
It seems that you have understood different!! Should we leave the Sahabah radhiallâhu ‘anhum and follow you! Which Nabi did you see?!!
We conclude by making Du’a that Allâh Ta’âlâ makes you understand the above contents and that he grants us and you the same frame of understanding like those who have passed on the Qur`ân to us.
AND ALLÂH TA’ÂLÂ KNOWS BEST.
Masood Cassim
Jamiatul Ulema
Azaadville
14 February, 2001
20 Thul-Qa’dah, 1421
