Reluctant
27-05-08, 03:12 AM
As salaamu aleykum, I have a question about the Ibadi stance toward rajm for zanis (stoning to death for married adulterers). I am a new revert to Islam and although I believe that the Qur'an is from Allah and that Muhammad (PBUH) is his messenger, I still have a few lingering questions about some aspects of the relationship between the Qur'an and sunnah. I first learned about Ibadi Muslims a few months ago and since then have been doing some research about them, however, material in English is difficult to find. There is one question that I have been thinking about for a while that I was hoping a knowledgeable Ibadi could help me with.
The Qur'an states:
The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment. 24:2
It does not make a distinction between married people (muhsan) and unmarried people (ghair muhsan). Sunnis believe that this verse is only applicable to unmarried people, whereas married people who commit zina must be stoned. Furthermore, they believe that there used to be an ayat about stoning in the Qur'an, but that it has been abrogated from its recitation (naskh al-tilawah, laa fil hukm). Obviously it is very difficult to rationalize that there is an ayat that has been taken out of the Qur'an, yet its ruling still applies, while there are abrogated laws in the Qur'an, but still remain in it, much less with something as important as killing someone!
The evidence for this is in Sahih Bukhari:
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." Book #82, Hadith #816
In Sahih Muslim it says:
'Abdullah b. 'Abbas reported that 'Umar b. Khattab sat on the pulpit of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: Verily Allah sent Muhammad (may peace be upon him) with truth and He sent down the Book upon him, and the verse of stoning was included in what was sent down to him. We recited it, retained it in our memory and understood it. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) awarded the punishment of stoning to death (to the married adulterer and adulteress) and, after him, we also awarded the punishment of stoning, I am afraid that with the lapse of time, the people (may forget it) and may say: We do not find the punishment of stoning in the Book of Allah, and thus go astray by abandoning this duty prescribed by Allah. stoning is a duty laid down in Allah's Book for married men and women who commit adultery when proof is established, or it there is pregnancy, or a confession. Book #17, Hadith #4194
So, Sunnis believe that there used to be a verse about stoning in the Qur'an that was recited, however, it was taken out of the recitation, yet its ruling still applies. I had read hints on a few websites that traditional Ibadhi scholars rejected this ruling and believed that 100 lashings, as stipulated in 24:2, applies to both married and unmarried adulterers. I thought that this was very interesting and that I had finally found a complete and rational form of Islam. It is not that I object to the punishment, but the logic behind the fact that there is an ayat that was revealed, but not in the Qur'an, yet its ruling still applies, does not rationally sit well with me. Unfortunately, however, I read an article recently by Yahya Ali Muammar entitled "Ibadhism: A Moderate Sect of Islam," in which he affirms that Ibadhis do believe in stoning, just like the Sunnis. I do not know whether this is a new Ibadhi stance which has been propagated solely in modern times to try to distance themselves from what outsides believe is their Khawarij past and align themselves closer with Sunnis, or if this is indeed the classical scholarly opinion in Ibadhi jurisprudence.
If anyone could please shed some light on this issue it would be much appreciated. Thank you!
As salaamu aleykum.
The Qur'an states:
The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment. 24:2
It does not make a distinction between married people (muhsan) and unmarried people (ghair muhsan). Sunnis believe that this verse is only applicable to unmarried people, whereas married people who commit zina must be stoned. Furthermore, they believe that there used to be an ayat about stoning in the Qur'an, but that it has been abrogated from its recitation (naskh al-tilawah, laa fil hukm). Obviously it is very difficult to rationalize that there is an ayat that has been taken out of the Qur'an, yet its ruling still applies, while there are abrogated laws in the Qur'an, but still remain in it, much less with something as important as killing someone!
The evidence for this is in Sahih Bukhari:
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." Book #82, Hadith #816
In Sahih Muslim it says:
'Abdullah b. 'Abbas reported that 'Umar b. Khattab sat on the pulpit of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: Verily Allah sent Muhammad (may peace be upon him) with truth and He sent down the Book upon him, and the verse of stoning was included in what was sent down to him. We recited it, retained it in our memory and understood it. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) awarded the punishment of stoning to death (to the married adulterer and adulteress) and, after him, we also awarded the punishment of stoning, I am afraid that with the lapse of time, the people (may forget it) and may say: We do not find the punishment of stoning in the Book of Allah, and thus go astray by abandoning this duty prescribed by Allah. stoning is a duty laid down in Allah's Book for married men and women who commit adultery when proof is established, or it there is pregnancy, or a confession. Book #17, Hadith #4194
So, Sunnis believe that there used to be a verse about stoning in the Qur'an that was recited, however, it was taken out of the recitation, yet its ruling still applies. I had read hints on a few websites that traditional Ibadhi scholars rejected this ruling and believed that 100 lashings, as stipulated in 24:2, applies to both married and unmarried adulterers. I thought that this was very interesting and that I had finally found a complete and rational form of Islam. It is not that I object to the punishment, but the logic behind the fact that there is an ayat that was revealed, but not in the Qur'an, yet its ruling still applies, does not rationally sit well with me. Unfortunately, however, I read an article recently by Yahya Ali Muammar entitled "Ibadhism: A Moderate Sect of Islam," in which he affirms that Ibadhis do believe in stoning, just like the Sunnis. I do not know whether this is a new Ibadhi stance which has been propagated solely in modern times to try to distance themselves from what outsides believe is their Khawarij past and align themselves closer with Sunnis, or if this is indeed the classical scholarly opinion in Ibadhi jurisprudence.
If anyone could please shed some light on this issue it would be much appreciated. Thank you!
As salaamu aleykum.