Login

AhmedBahgat · (This post was last modified: 06-02-2007, 11:21 PM by AhmedBahgat.)

Salam all

Glad to see islammessage back online again, I was trying to reply for the last few days with no joy, let me reply to a couple of comments :

Quote:Bismillah: Assalamo Alikum.

Salam brother Wael

Quote:Do you mean to say that Prophet Muhammad pbuh was making up “his own rules” concerning adultery and that he goes against the Qur’an ?

Well, I didn’t mean to say that, but it seems that other people make up their own ruling regarding Zina, while the ruling on Zina is very clear in the Quran, what is also clear in the Quran, is this:



26: Say: Allah knows best how long they remained; to Him are (known) the unseen things of the heavens and the earth; how clear His sight and how clear His hearing! There is none to be a guardian for them besides Him, and He does not make any one His associate in His Judgment.

27: And recite what has been revealed to you of the Book of your Lord, there is none who can alter His words; and you shall not find any refuge besides Him.

[The Quran ; 18:26-27]

 

قُلِ اللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ بِمَا لَبِثُوا لَهُ غَيْبُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ أَبْصِرْ بِهِ وَأَسْمِعْ مَا لَهُم مِّن دُونِهِ مِن وَلِيٍّ وَلَا يُشْرِكُ فِي حُكْمِهِ أَحَدًا (26)

وَاتْلُ مَا أُوحِيَ إِلَيْكَ مِن كِتَابِ رَبِّكَ لَا مُبَدِّلَ لِكَلِمَاتِهِ وَلَن تَجِدَ مِن دُونِهِ مُلْتَحَدًا (27)

-> See, ” وَلَا يُشْرِكُ فِي حُكْمِهِ أَحَدًا”, ”Wa La Yushrik Fi Hukmihi Ahda”, i.e. ” and He does not make any one His associate in His Judgment.”, now Allah judged in the Quran that both the Zani and Zania should be lashed 100 lashes in public, but you guys are not happy with that so you want another associate to add to the judgment of Allah regarding Zina, i.e. you guys had made an associate to Allah regarding the judgment of Zina and simply are following both rules, I.E you have committed SHIRK. The next verse makes it even clearer:

-> See what Allah is telling Mohammad, ” And recite what has been revealed to you of the Book of your Lord”, now let me ask you, was Mohammad ordered to recite his hadith instead of the Book of His Lord?, of course Mohammad can’t change the words of Allah nor anyone for that matter, look what the verse is telling us :” there is none who can alter His words” however you guys are changing the words of our Lords, you are trying to convince us with the inconvincible which is the words Zani and Zania, mean those unmarried who commit adultery, while the matter of the fact is clear, Zani and Zania are those (single or married) who commit adultery, do you agree with that?

If you agree that Zani and Zania mean those (single or married) who commit adultery, then let me ask you why you are changing the words of Allah out of its intended meaning?

Now, how do you want me to accept another ruling from another human which involves killing a soul while Allah told us above “He does not take any associate regarding His rulings)?

Of course the ruling of stoning the adulterers in Islam is man made, because it is not in the Quran, why it is not in the Quran, because when the prophet was asked to include the alleged verse of “The Sheikh and Sheikha, if the commit Zina, stone them outright”, he refused to include it in the Quran, let’s have a look at some info from the books of the hearsay “Hadith”:

[umar said:] Allah sent Muhammad with the Truth and revealed the holy book to him, and among what Allah revealed, was the verse of Rajam (the stoning of married persons, male and female, who commit adultery) and we did recite this verse and understood and memorized it. Allah's Apostle did carry out the punishment of stoning and so did we after him. I am afraid that after a long time has passed, somebody will say "By Allah's Book", we do not find the Verse of Rajam in Allah's Book, and thus they will go astray by leaving an obligation which Allah has revealed.

(Sahih Bukhari, vol. 8, p. 539) 

`Umar said from the pulpit, '... and part of what was revealed in the Qur'an read, "the saikh and the saikha, when they fornicate, stone them outright". Some will repudiate this, and but that men would say, "`Umar has added to the Book of God," I will write it on the margin of the mushaf.' 

(p. 78-79, al Sarakhsi, "Mabsut", 30 vols., Cairo, 1324, vol. 9, p. 36) 

[`Umar] announced from the Prophet's pulpit, God sent Muhammad with the truth and revealed to him the Book. Part of what God revealed was the stoning verse. We used to recite it and we memorised it. The Prophet stoned and we have stoned after him. I fear that with the passage of time some will say, 'We do not find stoning in the Book of God', and will therefore neglect a divine injunction which God revealed. Stoning is a just claim.... 

(p. 77-78, Ahmad b. al Husain al Baihaqi, "al Sunan al Kubra", 10 vols., Haiderabad, 1925-38/1344-57, vol. 8, p. 210)

ibn `Abbas reports a sermon by `Umar in the course of which he said, 'Men! stoning is a penalty laid down by God. Do not neglect it. It is in the Book of God and the Sunna of your Prophet. The Messenger of God stoned; Abu Bakr stoned, and I have stoned.'

(p. 75, Sulaiman b. Da'ud al Tayalisi, "Sunan", Haiderabad, 1904/1321, p. 6)

Malik reports ibn `Abbas as declaring, 'I heard `Umar b. al Khattab say, "Stoning in the Book of God is a just claim against the non-virgin, man or woman, who fornicates, when valid proof is adduced, or pregnancy ensues, or self-condemnation is volunteered."'

(p. 75, Malik b. Anas, "al Muwatta'", K. al Hudud.)

`Ali reported that the stoning verse had been revealed but those who bore it together with other verses in their memories perished in the Yemama.

(p. 121, Burhan al Din al Baji, "Jawab", MS Dar al Kutub, Taimur "majami`", no. 207, f. 14) [/b]

In a variant version `Umar fears that with the passage of time some will say, 'We do not find the stoning verse in the Book of God.' 

(p. 78)

Two men brought a case before the Prophet. One of them said, 'Messenger of God, judge between us in accordance with the Book of God.' 

The other, who was more familiar with litigation, said, 'Yes, Messenger of God, judge between us in accordance with the Book of God and let me speak first. My son served as a hired hand under this man, but he fornicated with his employer's wife. The man, informing me that my son had incurred the stoning penalty, I ransomed him from that penalty with 100 sheep and a slave girl I had. Subsequently I enquired of the learned who informed me that the stoning penalty lay on the man's wife.'

The Messenger of God said, 'By Him in Whose hand is my soul! I will judge between you in accordance with the Book of God. Your cattle and slave girl are to be restored to you.'

At this point, the direct speech ends, but the hadith continues, 'He awarded the son 100 strokes and banished him for a year. He ordered Unais al Aslami to go to the employer's wife, and in the event that she confess, imposed the stoning penalty. She confessed, and Unais stoned her.'

( Anas b. Malik, "al Muwatta'", K. al Hudud) 

The aunt of Abu Usama b. Sahl told him that the Prophet had instructed them in the reciting of the stoning verse.

(p. 82, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 2, p. 25)

God sent Muhammad and sent down the Scripture to him. Part of what he sent down was the passage on stoning, we read it, and we heeded it. The apostle stoned and we stoned them after him. I fear that in time to come men will say that they find no mention of stoning in God's book and thereby go astray in neglecting an ordinance which God has sent down. Verily stoning in the book of God is a penalty laid on married men and women who commit adultery.

(Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah, p. 684)

All the above evidences look cool and dandy, however it only has one problem, IT IS NOTHING BUT CONJECTURES and surely violates the Quran in two aspects:

1) Violates that Allah promised to reserve the Quran

2) Violates that Allah does not take associates in His rulings

While all the hearsay above confirm that the stoning verse was revealed to Mohammad, we suddenly read the following:

Ubayy said, 'It used to equal the length surat al Baqara and we used to recite in Ahzab the stoning verse.' Zirr asked, 'What is the stoning verse?' Ubayy recited, 'If the saikh and the saikha fornicate, stone them outright as an exemplary punishment from God. God is might, wise.'

(p. 80, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 2, p. 25)

Ubayy asked Zirr b. Hubais, 'How many verses do you recite in surat al Ahzab?' Zirr replied, 'Seventy-three verses.' Ubayy asked if that was all. 'I have seen it,' he said, 'when it was the same length as Baqara. It contained the words "The sheikh and the sheikha, when they fornicate, stone them outright, as an exemplary punishment from God. God is might, wise."' 

(p. 78-79, Ahmad b. al Husain al Baihaqi, "al Sunan al Kubra", 10 vols., Haiderabad, 1925-38/1344-57, vol. 8, pp. 210-11) 

I.e. the hearsay hadith above is telling us that sura 33 was the same length as sura 2\ but somehow we ended up with only 73 verses as we see them today, i.e. the Quran is not preserved contrary to what Allah is telling us in the Quran

Ahzab was identified as the sura originally containing the stoning verse, and, in addition to Ubayy and Abu Musa, `A'isa reports that Ahzab used to be recited, in the lifetime of the Prophet, as having 200 verses, but when `Uthman wrote out the mushafs, all they could find was its present length. 

(Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 2, p. 25) 

A variant of this hadith speaks of writing out the mushaf with, however, no mention of date or attribution. ibn al Anbari concluded from `A'isa's report that God withdrew from the sura everything in excess of its present length, and Mekki reminds us that withdrawal is one of the modes of naskh.

(p. 84, Burhan al Din al Baji, "Jawab", MS Dar al Kutub, Taimur "majami`", no. 207, f. 10) Ahzab has only seventy-three verses in today's mushaf. (p. 84)

Therefore if this concept called naskh is true then Allah has withdrew the verse of the stoning, again this is nothing but conjectures, however assuming it is true then the stoning DOES NOT APPLY ANY MORE, indeed when the prophet was asked to add the stoning verse to the Quran HE DECLINED:

Zaid b. Thabit and Sa`id b. al `As were writing out the mushaf. When they came to this verse, Zaid said, 'I heard the Prophet say, "the sheikh and the sheikha."' `Umar stated, 'When it was revealed, I went to the Messenger of God and said to him, "Shall I write it?" but he seemed to disapprove.' `Umar added, 'Don't you see that the mature, if unwed, would only be flogged in the event of fornication, yet the youth, if wed, would be stoned?' 

(p. 80, Ahmad b. `Ali b. Muhammad al `Asqalani, ibn Hajar, "Fath al Bari", 13 vols, Cairo, 1939/1348, vol. 12, p. 119; Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 2, p. 26) 

Marwan b. al Hakam asked Zaid why he would not write the verse in the mushaf. Zaid replied, Don't you see that the youth if married is stoned? We raised this question with `Umar and he said, 'I'll see to it.' He went to the Prophet and asked his permission to record the verse. The Prophet said he could not permit that.

(p. 81-82, Ahmad b. `Ali b. Muhammad al `Asqalani, ibn Hajar, "Fath al Bari", 13 vols, Cairo, 1939/1348, vol. 12, p. 131; Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 2, p. 26-7) 

Hmmmm, was the prophet and his companions moderating Allah words?, of course not, it seems the best conjecture to fit all the above hearsay that Allah has changed His words contrary to 18:27 and withdrew the stoning verse so He ordered Mohammed not to include it in the Quran, and if this is true while I still don’t believe it then the stoning does not apply anymore, the verse is mansookh according to the alleged naskh concept.

It has to be an order from Allah because if Mohammad moderated Allah words without Allah permission, this is what should have happened to him:



43: (This is) a Message sent down from the Lord of the Worlds.

44: And if he had fabricated against Us some of the sayings,

45: We would certainly have seized him by the right hand,

46: Then We would certainly have cut off his aorta.

47: And not one of you could have withheld Us from him.

48: And most surely it is a reminder for those who guard (against evil).

[The Quran ; 69:43-48]

 

تَنزِيلٌ مِّن رَّبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ (43)

وَلَوْ تَقَوَّلَ عَلَيْنَا بَعْضَ الْأَقَاوِيلِ (44)

لَأَخَذْنَا مِنْهُ بِالْيَمِينِ (45)

ثُمَّ لَقَطَعْنَا مِنْهُ الْوَتِينَ (46)

فَمَا مِنكُم مِّنْ أَحَدٍ عَنْهُ حَاجِزِينَ (47)

وَإِنَّهُ لَتَذْكِرَةٌ لِّلْمُتَّقِينَ (48)

In the verses above Allah is telling us about His Quran:

-> ”43: (This is) a Message sent down from the Lord of the Worlds.”, now if the prophet has modified this message without Allah permission:”44: And if he had fabricated against Us some of the sayings,”, refusing to include the stoning verse must fall under this of course, i.e. the prophet must have been fabricating sayings against Allah (Allah forbids), it never happened of course, because if it did, then this is what should have happened to Mohammad:”45: We would certainly have seized him by the right hand, and 46: Then We would certainly have cut off his aorta. “ and no one would have been able to save him :”47: And not one of you could have withheld Us from him.” then Allah is summing it beautifully to us that the Quran is the reminder for Al Muttaqeen :”48: And most surely it is a reminder for those who guard (against evil). “ and in the Quran we read Allah ruling regarding the punishment of the Zina as follow:



2- 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.

[The Quran ; 24:2]



الزَّانِيَةُ وَالزَّانِي فَاجْلِدُوا كُلَّ وَاحِدٍ مِّنْهُمَا مِئَةَ جَلْدَةٍ وَلَا تَأْخُذْكُم بِهِمَا رَأْفَةٌ فِي دِينِ اللَّهِ إِن كُنتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ وَلْيَشْهَدْ عَذَابَهُمَا طَائِفَةٌ مِّنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ (2)

-> 24:2 is telling us the punishment of a Zani or a Zania , ”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.

However according to your logic, you are not happy with the above and only ruling by Allah regarding the Zani and Zania, so you are changing the words Zani and Zania to mean only those who are not married, while in Arabic this is nothing but false of course, because the word Zani and Zania mean anyone (married or not) who commits adultery, on the other hand assuming that the verse of the stoning was included in the Quran, yet the words SHEIKH and SHEIKHA DO NOT MEAN A MARRIED MAN and A MARRIED WOMAN, rather AN OLD MAN and AN OLD WOMAN, indeed a sheikh and a sheikha may be singles, DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT?

You have absolutely no point brother, unless you want to follow conjectures said by many people who look like they were confused about the subject and you want to take their hearsay as ruling from Allah under His Sharia, well, those who do that must be those the following verse is talking about:



Or have they associates who have prescribed for them in the religion that Allah does not sanction? And were it not for the word of judgment, decision would have certainly been given between them; and surely the unjust shall have a painful punishment.

[The Quran ; 42:21]



أَمْ لَهُمْ شُرَكَاء شَرَعُوا لَهُم مِّنَ الدِّينِ مَا لَمْ يَأْذَن بِهِ اللَّهُ وَلَوْلَا كَلِمَةُ الْفَصْلِ لَقُضِيَ بَيْنَهُمْ وَإِنَّ الظَّالِمِينَ لَهُمْ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ (21)

-> See, -> See, ” أَمْ لَهُمْ شُرَكَاء شَرَعُوا لَهُم مِّنَ الدِّينِ مَا لَمْ يَأْذَن بِهِ اللَّهُ”, i.e. ” Or have they associates who have prescribed for them in the religion that Allah does not sanction?”, please tell me, how many Sheikh, Mullahs, Imams and Muftis prescribed the ruling regarding the Zani and Zania in a way that Allah never sanctioned it in His Quran?, can’t get clearer than this

Quote:The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “[under Islamic laws in an Islamic state] It is not lawful to shed the blood of a Muslim except for one of three sins: a married person committing fornication, and in just retribution for premeditated murder, and [for sin of treason involving] a person renouncing Islam, and thus leaving the community [to join the enemy camp in order to wage war against the faithful]
.” (Al-Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, and An-Nasa’i)

Great, now I ask you why he refused to include it in the Quran, was he moderating the unchangeable Allah words?

Quote:
Salam

Wael.

Salam Brother

Quote:
Bismillah

Brother Ahmed I think u really need to reconsider much of what you post, not because of who reads,

Salam sister

I would have preferred that you pin point me to where exactly I got it wrong, it is all for the sake of the truth, right?, thank you

Quote: but because of yourself.

Of course it has to be for myself, I only care to save myself in this test to be honest, however I don’t want others to be doomed while not realizing it, would that be a bad thing to do?

Quote:
Re read the Ayahs carefully, and try to understand.

Which Ayahs please?, can you pin point me to where exactly I got it wrong?, cheers

Quote:And if this is who u intend to translate the meanings of Quran,

Translate, or understand? There is a big difference dear sister

On the other hand, did I understand the meaning of the words Zani and Zania wrong?, does it mean those who are not married and commit adultery? Or does it mean anyone (single or not) who commits adultery?

Do I understand the meaning or the words Sheikh and Sheikha wrong?, do they mean old married man and old married woman, or only mean an old man and an old woman?

So under the human ruling you are following:

We have the following case studies:

A) a 17 years old married man and a 15 years old married woman who commit adultery

B) a 65 years old single man and a 55 years old single woman who commit adultery

The two young and unexperienced couple will be stoned to death while the two old adults who suppose to be mature enough and have years of experience will be flogged 100 lashes?

Is that what you are telling me? well before you answer I will remind you with what Omar said:

Umar added, 'Don't you see that the mature, if unwed, would only be flogged in the event of fornication, yet the youth, if wed, would be stoned?'

Quote:then I sincerely advice you to hold on and try to revise your knowledge.

Thank you for the advice dear sister and I sincerely advice you and advice others to do the exact same

Salam Sister

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me