Stoning to death & Preservation of Hadeeth

Jazak Allah Kher Fe Dunya Wal Akhira Dear Brother of Islam.

The punishments of Shari'a are vital part of the Islamic State, such as stoning, cutting the hand of the thief etc.

Not accepting the laws of Allah is one of the ten nullifiers of Islam.


---------------------

Visit my new Islamic Site:
http://hstrial-besmail.homestead.com/islam.html

Brother Kadafi recently I read your post you submitted in reply of my post. But sorry to say this is surprising for me when persons like You or Ansar present such kinds of statements. I thought you both are knowledge full persons but now I am thinking you have imagine that knowledge is the name of read some books (forgive me for my word). These forums are created to learn and I think every one here has a limited knowledge so when a thing come in front of us we should think over deeply, then examine it in every way we could, come out with results and present our views. But never sure my view is 100% secure. There could be many things out of our sight. But, forgive me, I felt many time you and brother Ansar or persons like you insist over what you have said.

Jazaka'Allaahu khairun for your post, even though you did not address most of my points (see #54) and thus missing the gist of what I discussed; I still feel obliged to offer you a reply based on what you stated.

What is knowledge according to the Glorious Qur'aan and the Sunnah and is it feasible for a layman to "examine" evidence and present his opinions/views?

Accordin' to Shaykh Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him), knowledge is:

knowledge of the Sharee'ah; knowledge of what Allaah revealed to His Messenger, from the clear explanations and guidance. So the type of knowledge which contains praise, is knowledge of the Revealation; knowledge of what Allaah revealed only. The Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said:

"Whoever Allaah intends to show goodness to, He grants him the understanding of the Religion."

And the Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said:

"The Prophets do not leave behind them the deenaar nor the dirham as inheritance, they leave only knowledge behind as inheritance. So whosoever aquires it, aquires a huge fortune."

And it is known that the Prophets only beqeathed knowledge of Allaah's Prescribed Laws, nothing else. The Prophets (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), did not beqeathe to mankind knowledge of the arts and crafts."

Similiary, Imaam ash-Shaafi'ee (May Allaah have mercy on him) said:

"It is not permissible for anyone to ever say about anything that it is lawful or prohibited, except upon knowledge. This knowledge is what is related in the Book, or the Sunnah, or a consensus (ijmaa'), or an analogy (qiyaas)."

This leaves us with the second question, whether a layman can interpret and deduce rulings accordin' to his understanding? The answer is simply no since he has not grasped the objectives and goals of the Shariah, which is only attainable by thoroughly studying the text and the detailed workings of the Shariah. This is because Allaah (Exalted is He) said:

"Whoever Allaah intends to show goodness to, He grants him the Fiqh of the Religion"

Thus, your definition of 'knowledge' leaves the door open to every layman who wishes to interpret the Qur'aan and the Sunnah by merely using his deficient understanding.

Umer (rt) said Muhammad (saw) sent by Allah as messenger and a book is revealed upon Him. And what ever revealed the verse about “Rajam” (stoning) was include. We read, understand and memorized it. Muhammad (saw) do Rajam, we do also. Now I am afraid of after a long time may some one claim that this verse is not in Quran and due to stopped the “Ferz” revealed by Almighty. So, indeed, stoning is from Kitaab Allah (Quran) so the application is essential whenever you found, with evidences, some one (male or female) committed Zina in-spite-of he or she is married. (Kifa’yaa by Abu Baker Khateeb)

It is not correctly translated akhee. The hadeeth is found in the two saheeh volumes, reported by Ibn 'Abbaas (May Allaah be pleased with him) that 'Umar (May Allaah be pleased with him) said:

“Allaah sent Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) with the truth and revealed to him the Book, and one of the things that Allaah revealed was the verse of stoning. We have read it and understood it. The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) stoned (adulterers) and we stoned (them) after him, but I fear that there may come a time when some people say: ‘By Allaah, we do not find the verse of stoning in the Book of Allaah.’ So they will go astray by forsaking an obligation that Allaah has revealed. According to the Book of Allaah, stoning is deserved by the one who commits zina, if he is married, men and women alike, if proof is established or the woman becomes pregnant or they confess…” [Bukharee - Muslim]

There is another “Rivaayat” in Ibn-a-Maaja that makes clear the story behind above Rivaayat
– Ibn-a-Maaja said when (in abu baker’s (rt) era) Quran is gathered in the shape of book by Zaid (rt) this verse is presented only by Umer (rt), because of there was not even a single witness other than Umer (rt) of this verse it could not be entered in Quran. Zaid (rt) made the principle that only those verses could be entered in Quran which have at least two witness. And there was only Umer (rt) who knew this verse. (Ibn-a-Maaja)

This is a complete fabrication and is not found in the Sunaan Ibn Majaah. The reason being is that it has no isnad, meaning that this hadeeth is mu'addal and furthermore, there is no authority who narrated this report (meaning either Abu Bakr, Zayd or anyone else present). I urge you to cite the reference.

Also, to expose the ridiculousness of the statement, 'Umar (May Allaah be pleased with him) explicitly stated that they (meaning the Sahabas) understood it (meaning they applied the punishment as it was the practise of the Prophet). In addition, the ayaah was abrogated verbally but its injuction is still applicable (Naskh at-Tilaawah doona al-Hukm).

Ibn Hajaar (May Allaah have mercy on him) stated a reason why the ayaah was never written down, however, it's only opinion, only Allaah (Exalted is He) knows the wisdom behind the abrogating. Ibn Hajar stated a report from Zaid Ibn Thabit who recited the ayah while compiling the Mushaaf, Ibn Hajaar commenting on this and stated the ayah was not written down is that the practice was not on the appararent meaning.

Ibn Hajaar also stated another narration reported by Ibn Durais that Umar addressed the people saying: "Dont doubt stoning because it is true and I had the desire to write it in the Mushaaf so I asked Ubaay Ibn Ka'b, and he replied: "Do you remember that I wanted to ask the Prophet to recite it for me, then you struck me on my chest and you said: Do you want to ask him to recite the ayah of stoning for you whilst they are mounting, like how they mount donkeys"

Ibn hajaar said that the narrators in the chain are trusthworthy and reliable and this hadeeth is an indictation to why the recitation was abrogated and that is because of differences.

Also, 'Umar said in one narration reported in Muwatta that if there was no risk involved that people would accuse him of making addition in the Book of Allaah, he would have written this ayah on a corner of the Glorious Qur'aan, bear in mind that he did not say that he would have included this ayaah in the Qur'aan.

Ibn Qudamah wrote in Al-Mughni:

First, stoning a married adulterer and adulteress is obligatory as agreed by all religious scholars everywhere and from the days of the Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), his companions, down to their followers and those who followed them. The only group that disagreed (to this fact) are the Khawarij (a deviated Muslim group) who said: Both the virgin and the widow are to be whipped.

He further said that

There is evidence that the Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) confirmed the stoning in both words and acts, and all his companions agreed upon it (after him). Allaah has revealed (this punishment) in the Book (Qur’an) in an abrogated verse whose judgment still stands

In addition, the law of stoning has been narrated by 'Umar, 'Uthmaan, 'Ali, 'Aisha, 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ood, Abu Umama Ibn Sahl, Anas Ibn Malik, Jabir Ibn 'Abdullah, 'Abdullah ibn Abi Aufaa, Abu Hurairah, 'Abdullah Ibn 'Abbas, 'ubaadah Ibn Samit, Jabir Ibn Samurah, Abu 'Sa'eed Khudri, 'Imraan Ibn Hussain, Buraida Ibn Husaib, Nu'aim Ibn hazal, Hazal Al-Aslami, Nasr Ibn Dahr, Abu Barzah, Ah-Lahlaj, Zaid Ibn Thabit, Ubaiyy Ibn Ka'b, 'Ajma. These are all the sahabas who reported the stoning from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), this does not include the stoning carried out by Khulafa-i-Rashideen.

Most of these reports are muttawatir in verbatim and in meaning.

In addition to this, is the ijmaa' of the Sahabas who put in practice after the death of the Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). This is stated by 'Umar (see above). There is ijmaa' of the four main maddhabs:

Maaliki Maddhab: “Stoning will be executed against the adult Muslim….”

Hanafi Maddhab : “When the ihsaan of the adulterer has been substantiated by means of evidence or confession, Stoning will be inflicted on him on the basis of Nass (categoric Hadeeth Proof), and on the basis of rational proof. The Nass is the Mash - hoor Hadith of the Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him): ‘ The blood of a Musli m is not lawful except with one of three factors — Kufr after Emaan; Zina after Ihsaan; Killing a person without valid cause . ”

Shaafi Maddhab:“When the adulterer is a muhsin , his (or her) hadd (prescribed punishment) is Stoning.”

Hambaali Maddhab: “The Imaams are unanimous that the Hadd of he adulterer and adulteress is Stoning…. ”

and consesus of the Muhadditeen.

If these verses could not be entered in Quran (no matter what is the reason) then there could be many more. If some verses did not enter in Quran then it is possible too many self made verses entered in Quran, how you could claim the Quran is as exact as it was revealed when you have made the principle of “Un-recited wahee”?

This is lack of knowledge on your part akhee. It seems that you haven't comprehended the rules of abrogation [naskh]. Allaah (Exalted is He) said:

Whatever We (Allaah) abrogate of any aayat or cause it to be forgotten,..)

Note that it cleary says: "cause to be forgotten" which is in the case of the ayah of stoning.

The fact that you refered the abrogated recitation of the stoning verse as 'unrecited wahy' also demonstrates that you haven't really understood what I stated in my previous post.In addition, you're referrin' the Glorious Qur'aan as the only source leaving out the Sunnah which composes of the Shariah as (Exalted is He) said:

Then, We established you on a Shariah. Therefore, follow it, and do not follow the vain desires of those who do not know. meaning the revealed laws (Qur'aan and the SUnnah)

This is confirmed in Sooraat al-Jaathiyah when Allaah (Exalted is He) says:

Then We put you on a straight path (Shariah) in your affairs, so follow it and do not follow the desires of those who have no knowledge

Islaam (Shariah) has attained completion and perfection during the time of the Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). This is evidently in the ayaah:

This day have I perfected for you your Deen, and I have completed for you My Favour, and I have chosen for you Islaam as your Deen.

If the Sahabas acknowledged that the Prophet confirmed the stoning in both words and acts, how can one doubt that it's not wahy.


What puzzles me is that you claim that I have forged the principle of 'unrecited wahy'.

Unrecited wahy [Ghayr-Matluww] means revelation that is not recited but formulated in the words of the Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and the meanings of which is from Allaah.

The revelation that is recited and which are the exact words of Allaah (Exalted is He) is called Wahy Matluww meaning [revelation that is recited].

Evidence for the revelation that is not recited is in the Glorious Qur'aan. Allaah (Exalted is He) says:

He does not speak from his desires. Verily it is inspiration (unrecited revelation) which has been revealed

He was also given the responsibility of clarifying for mankind Allaah's intent in the Message:

We have revealed the Reminder (Qur'aan) to you, in order that you explain to mankind what was revealed to them, that perhaps they may reflect

The explaining here is all found in his Sunnah. The Prophet would explain the intent of the Qur'anic texts by making a statement, at other times he would do so by an act, and yet other times he would do so by both.

So thus, the sunnah is an exposition of the Glorious Qur'aan by which its generalities were clarified and its intended meanings specificied.

Everything in the Sunnah can be found in the Glorious Qur'aan, either by inference or by direct reference. The address may be so general as to include the whole Sunnah as in the case of the verse:

Whatever the messenger gives you, take it; and whatever he forbids you, leave it

Or the address may indicate generaly defined laws, the details of which are left to the Sunnah. Hence the Sunnah may explain the methodology, reasons, requirements and location, or it may explain the inclusions which could not be logically deduced. An example of such inclusions may be found in the case of forbidden foods beyond those method in the Glorious Qur'aan. Allaah does state in reference the messenger:

He made lawful for them the good (and pure) things and forbade them the bad (and impure)

Anas ibn Maalik said: "On the day of the Battle of Khaybar, a visitor came and said, "Oh messenger of Allaah, the donkeys have been eaten.' Then another came and said, 'Oh messenger of Allaah, the donkeys are being destroyed.' Allah's messenger (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) then sent Abu Talhah to make an announcement; Allaah and His Messenger have prohibited you from eating the flesh of domesticated donkeys, for it is bad (and impure) (Collected by Muslim)

I am not going cite all the ayaats that refer to his Sunnah. Some of the ayaats have been quoted in post #54 which you failed to reply.

Most of the “Rivayaat” relate to stoning are narrated by Umer (rt) but here His personal behavior going opposite, why? “Abu Shum’ha” means His (rt) son was a married man, why He (rt) did not announce the punishment of stoning for him? And it is the basic part of “Rijaal” that if the practice of Suhaaba Ikraam opposite of what Hadith or Rivaayat is mentioning then certainly that Rivaayat or Hadith is wrong.

Akhee since when was Abi Shamhah married?

The story is an extract from the book Shariah the Islaamic Law by Professor 'Abdur-Rahman I Doi

One day Abi Shamhah walked past a persons house, drank wine and became intoxicated. He saw a sleeping woman and committed zina (fornication) with her. She became pregnant. When she gave birth to her son, she took him to the Prophets mosque, placed the baby on the lap of Caliph Umar saying, 'O Commander of the faithful, take this child as you have a greater right over him than myself'. Then she explained that it was the child of his son, Abi Shamhah. Caliph Umar asked if he was legitimate. She replied, 'From my side it is legitimate, from his side it is illigitimate'. And she told him what happened.

The Caliph went home and confirmed with his son that he had committed the crime even though he was very ashamed of having done so. The Caliph caught himby his collar and took him to the prophets mosque. Abi Shamhah asked him weher he was being taken, and Caliph Umar replied, 'to the companions in the Prophets mosque so I may take from you the right of Allah in this world before it is taken from you in the next world'.

Abi Shamhah asked Caliph Umar to take God's right then and there so that he would not have to face the companions in embarassment. Umar replied, 'O son, you have already disgraced yourself and your father. We must go in their presence'.

Umar ordered Maflah to give him stripes. When he was given 70 stripes, Abi Shamhah appealed to the companions of the Prophet to intervene. The companions asked Umar to stop. But Umar replied, 'O Companions of the Prophet, have you not read in the Quran "Do not show mercy over them"' He was then given the full 100 stripes as a result of which Abi Shamhah died. Then Caliph Umar took him to his house, gave him a bath, and buried him.

Here, the story fully illustrates that 'Umar would administer the punishment regardless of the status and prominence of the offender. The Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said:

"What destroyed the nations preceding you, was that if a noble amongst them stole, they would forgive him, and if a poor person amongst them stole, they would enforce the legal punishment (Hadd) on him. By Allaah, if Fatima, the daughter of Muhammed stole, I would cut off her hand."

Let see this matter in another point of view – when you see the punishments for other wrong deeds described in Quran you would easily examine that for all the crimes, other than murder, there is no other way but the punishment described by Almighty. For example
And the thief, man and woman, cut off their hands as recompense exemplary from God for what they earned; and God is Mighty, Wise. (38/5)
And those who accuse chaste women, then do not bring four witnesses, flog them with eighty stripes, and do not accept their testimony ever, for they are the transgressors; but those who, thereafter, repent and make amends, then God is Forgiving, Merciful.(5/24)

This is very interesting. Because the ayaah that you cited places no restriction which simply states that anyone found quilty of stealing should have his hand cut. This would mean that if a person is found stealing a needle, his hand would be cut off.

The Sunnah places restriction on the application of this punishment. The stolen property must equal a nisab (one quarter of a Dinar in gold). Furthermore, the wealth/property must be stolen from a place where such wealth/property is ussualy kept. In addition, the robber and opportunist thief are not classified as thiefs.

Ibn al-Qayyim said:

The fact that the hand of the thief (saariq) may be cut off for three dirhams, and not in the case of the opportunist thief (mukhtalis, one who steals when a person is not looking), robber or extortioner (ghaasib, one who seizes something by force) is indicative of the perfect wisdom of sharee’ah. For one cannot take precautions against the thief who breaks into houses and breaches one’s hiding-places and breaks locks; the owner of the goods cannot do any more than that (i.e., hiding them in appropriate places). If it were not prescribed for the hand of the thief to be cut off, then people would steal from one another in this manner and a great deal of harm would be done, and the problem of theft would be grievous indeed. This is unlike the case of the robber and opportunist thief, for the robber is the one who takes things openly in the sight of people, so they may stop him and restore the rights of the one who has been wronged, or they may testify before the judge. And the opportunist thief is the one who takes things when the owner is not paying attention, etc., so there has to be some form of negligence which enables the opportunist to steal, otherwise when one is careful and alert, he cannot take anything. So he is not like a thief (saariq), rather he is more like a betrayer.

Moreover, the opportunist theif (mukhtalis) does not take things from a place where things of that nature are usually hidden, rather he waits until you are not paying attention, then he takes your things when you put something down for a moment and are not paying attention. This is something against which precautions may be taken in most cases, and he (the opportunist) is like the robber who steals openly. With regard to the one who seizes things by force, the case is more obvious: it is even more apt that his hand should not be cut off, but it is permissible to put a stop to the actions of these people by beating them, making an example out of them as a warning to others, imprisoning them for lengthy periods and punishing them by seizing their property. Alaam al-Muwaqqieen,

I do not want to elongate the post, so I will stop here since the rest of your "replies" are ayaats which you seem to interpret according to your own whims. You have not used any authoritive references but rather relied on how you perceive the ayaats. Surely, that's a grave sin.

Abu Bakr (May Allaah be pleased with him) said:

"What earth could carry me, what heaven could shade me if I spoke about a single verse of Allah's Book according to my mere opinion or to say something of which I have no knowledge?"

`Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him) warned us about those who mis-interpretate the Glorious Qur'aan:

"I only fear for you two matters: A man that interprets the Qur'an in a way other than the interpretation in which it is meant, and a man who vies with his brother in acquiring property."

He also said:

"Beware of those who put forward opinions (ashab al-ra'i ) for they are the enemies of the Sunnah. They have despaired of memorizing the Prophet's(Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) narrations and have resorted to forwarding opinions. As a result they went astray and misguided others."

I might address them after you have reflected on what I stated and not simply start a new topic 3 months later akhee. Insha'Allaah, I want this discussion to be a constructive discussion where we demolish your misconceptions one by one.

Assalaam o alaikum brother Kadafi

Brother first of all I want to clear you that I don’t like such debates, because I am not a dictator that I compel you to accept what I have presented here. Same as Allah (Rab ul Izzat) said to his Messenger (saw), “your work is to convey the message; you are not liable to compel them to accept it”. You & I have presented our views, you should think over what I presented here and I will examine your views, others themselves can decide what the best is. May Allah (Rub ul Izzat) bless all of us and make us able to spend our lives according to what He decided for us. Now come to your post. I hope this discussion will close now, because I don’t think there is a benefit of repeating the things again and again.

format_quote Originally Posted by kadafi

What is knowledge according to the Glorious Qur'aan and the Sunnah and is it feasible for a layman to "examine" evidence and present his opinions/views?

Quran is an absolute knowledge, so there is no need to examine it. Even then Quran said (for “Ahl-a-Aimaan”)

And those who, when they are reminded by the “Aayaat” of their Lord, do not fall down at them deaf and blind.(73/25)

And it’s my “Aaimaan” that Sunnah is, certainly, to convert the verbal orders in practical. So I can easily get the knowledge about Sunnah through Quran, and it would be authentic. So I did not mean to examine Quranic verses, because these verses are standard to examine every matter, but the other sources through misc. ways as well as through Quran.

And what do you mean by layman? I think every person is layman until he become able to call a knowledge full person. Bhukhari or Muslim was not layman? They did efforts and got up from the list of laymen, then called knowledge full person. Or you think now here is no one able to get up from the list of laymen? They were laymen too; there were not any inspiration for them. They got knowledge same as we get, they examined it and presented what they could understand. It does not mean whatever they presented is 100% perfect and we should go on the way with blind eyes.

"Whoever Allaah intend to show goodness to, He grants him the understanding of the Religion."
"Whoever Allaah intends to show goodness to, He grants him the Fiqh of the Religion"

The game of words, where this game has brought us every one easily examine by glimpses. And what blame upon whom “whoever Allah doesn’t intend to show goodness to”, what they should do when the “Fiqh” of religion is not given to them by Almighty? This is the justice of Allah that He does not show them the right path but ready to punish for what they do? What your “salaafs” interpretation says about?

When you bring such kinds of statements in front of me it make my thinking firm about you that you are not a scholar but a typical “Moolvi”. But brother its not the good way to see your Deen.

This leaves us with the second question, whether a layman can interpret and deduce rulings accordin' to his understanding? The answer is simply no since he has not grasped the objectives and goals of the Shariah,

How you imagine everyone except you and your “Salaafs” is layman, and not able to understand the book? How you know there is no one except you and your Salaafs that grasped the objectives and goals of Shariah? I think you don’t know how many time the verse “this Quran is so easy for those that want to understand it” is repeated in Quran. There is only one condition, presented by Quran, to understand it

“this book (Quran) is beyond any doubt, but it is guidance for those only that close their eyes from everywhere except what is revealed by Almighty in the book”. (2/2)

It is not correctly translated akhee.

Thanks for your correctness but I could not understand where I was wrong in translation.

This is a complete fabrication and is not found in the Sunaan Ibn Majaah.

Here you may right but a little because it’s not fabricated but I have forgot the link.It was in my mind, my memory strike that I have read it in Ibn-a-maaja so I present the name. If it is not in Ibn-a-maaja then I think it is in abu dawood. Ok, I have to search it again where I got it.

(Naskh at-Tilaawah doona al-Hukm).

I think the concept of “Naskh” has much importance in your life, because at many places I have read these words from you but I did not touch it because it’s a very useless matter that was created by “Khitaabi” and his co-religionist to change the orders of Quranic verses. But I think you could enlighten the matter, I am putting some question plz reply for me

1_According to you and your co-religionist how many verses are agreed “Naskh”?
2_Please present at least five verses that are agreed cancelled?
3_We need to act upon the verses that have been cancelled or not?
4_How many verses are in Quran we need not to act upon?

Ibn Hajaar (May Allaah have mercy on him) stated a reason why the ayaah was never written down, however, it's only opinion,

Why had these verses cancelled no one sure about but it is certainty that these are cancelled, gooood.

The only group that disagreed (to this fact) are the Khawarij (a deviated Muslim group) who said: Both the virgin and the widow are to be whipped.

If “khawarji” said the same what the Quran is saying then they are “deviate”, we need not to pay attention because they are Khawarji? You mean whatever the Khawarji said is wrong may that is according to Quran, but if someone is insisting over the things that are against Quran even then one is like a Messenger because he is not khawarji but one of your salaafs, bohat khooob. They themselves announced that we are khawarij or you make them Khawarji? They were khawarij because they said “we don’t accept the things out of Quran”, and we are “Moomin” because we are ready to accept every thing out of Quran might it be against the book. They present a thing that is according to Quran how you decline it? You reject it because a label (khawarij) has been pasted upon by some persons, then this label has been pasted upon Muhammad (saw) too. He (saw) was not khawarji for whole Arab when He (saw) presented a new Deen? Think if you able to think.

There is ijmaa' of the four main maddhabs:

I don’t need to know what your “Mazzhabs” say about; I need to know what my DEEN has said. May the Imams of these Mazzhabs have the place like Allah’s Messengers in front of you and you see their books like divine books but in my opinion if they are presenting something which is against Quran then, according to Quran, they are certainly “Zaalim”. Who permit them to make Ijma over a thing one or two "lives" depend upon, furthermore against the divine book? They are not agreeing upon most of the matters but over the thing that is against Quran they are agreed, surprising.

Whatever We (Allaah) abrogate of any aayat or cause it to be forgotten,..)
Note that it cleary says: "cause to be forgotten" which is in the case of the ayah of stoning.

I have put the questions above but here asking again “if this verse is forgotten by Almighty then why are you insisting to remember it? You should also forget it”. You did not put the next words of this Aayat; the verse is

Whatever verse We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it, or the like of it; dost thou not know that God is powerful over everything? (106/2)

If the verse of stoning is “caused to be forgotten” then which one is replaced? And if verse of stoning is replacement then which one is forgotten? Could you please explain for me?

If you want to apply this principle upon the stoning verse then you should know the order of stoning was in “Torah” as mentioned in a Rivaayat that Mohammad (saw) announced the punishment of stoning for a Yahoodi according to their book Torah. According to your “forgotten” principle certainly that verse is replaced by the verses mentioned in Quran.

What is “Aayat”? Are the verses of Quran Called Aayaat only? No if you read the Quran carefully it is easy to know most of the things are called by name of Aayaat of Almighty. The land, universe, solar systems, previous books so and so every thing is the Aayat of Allah (Rab ul Izzat). The place where from you pick the part of the verse, you mentioned above, is very clear if you read that chapter in full, the topic is “previous books (Aayaat) are to be forgotten” and the replacement, in shape of Quran, is in front of you, simple. But I think you don’t like the simple things.

Then, We established you on a Shariah. Therefore, follow it, and do not follow the vain desires of those who do not know. meaning the revealed laws (Qur'aan and the SUnnah)

The word “interpretation” is your favorite word so using for you “is this your interpretation that the revealed laws means Quran and Sunnah”, and both are a different things.

What puzzles me is that you claim that I have forged the principle of 'unrecited wahy'.

I did not claim you forged this principle but I said this principle is forged.

[Quote]He does not speak from his desires. Verily it is inspiration (unrecited revelation) which has been revealed[Quote]

How you know brother the word inspiration means “un-recited revelation”? It means you have the authority to interpretation of Quran as you like but other could not be. Every person that has a little touch with Quran knows this verse is the reply of what the “Kuffar” said “why you yourself not announce the orders in the matter of Deen” and “these are the stories Muhammad (saw) has listened from someone and repeating in front of us day and night”. But you changed its meanings to un-recited revelation.

Whatever the messenger gives you, take it; and whatever he forbids you, leave it
Or the address may indicate generaly defined laws, the details of which are left to the Sunnah.

He made lawful for them the good (and pure) things and forbade them the bad (and impure)

Your words “may” and “left to the Sunnah” are interesting. If Sunnah was able to define laws and Muhammad (saw) had the authority to announce the things lawful or unlawful then what is the need of Quran? The above two verses were enough. Allah reveals these verses and Muhammad (saw) announced these things are good and lawful and those are not.

[Quote]Akhee since when was Abi Shamhah married?[Quote]

If a man could be called “abu” or “abi” before marriage then may he was unmarried. As I know Abu or Abi is not the part of a name but “Kuni’yat”. Let see who’s “Kuni’yat was Abu Shumha, Umer (rt) made many marriages and there is a numbers of children He (rt) had

1_Zainab binnat-a-Maa’zoon ________ Hafsa, Abdullah, Abdul Rehman (al akbar)
2_Aatika binnat-a-Zaid bin Umro bin Nafeel ______ Ai’yaaz
3_Jameela binnat-a-Saabit bin Aflah ______ Aasim
4_Umay Hakeem binnat-a-Haaris bin Hashaam ______ Fatima
5_Umay Kalsoom binnat-a-Jarool bin Malik _______ Abaidullah, Zaid (al akbar)
6_Umay Kalsoom binnat-a-Ali bin Abi Talib _____ Zaid (al asghar), Ruqai’ya

Other than this Umer (rt) have three more child from two female servants
1_Fakee’ya _______ Zainab
2_Lahee’ya _______ Abdul Rehman (al wast), Abdul Rehman (al asghar)
(Hayaat-a-Farooq ul Aazam by Ibn-a-Joozi)

Some historians claim Abaidullah’s Kuni’yat was Abu Shumha, but it is wrong because it’s the agreed matter that He was alive at the time of “Jang-a-Suffain”
(Tahzeeb ul Tahzeeb by Ibn-a-hajar)

Ibn-a-Joozi said, Abu Shumha was the Kuni’yat of Abdul Rehman (al wast). He participated in “Jahaad-a-Missar” (Egypt). Where He made a mistake; drink “Nabeez”, unfortunately it was a little old so He drunk. Next day He came to Umro bin Aass (rt) and insist for “Hadd”, Umro (rt) gave him stripe but in a “Tent”. When this event came into the knowledge of Umer (rt) He annoyed that why it was not done in front of all persons. Then Umer (rt) gave some stripe to Abdul Rehman in Madeena as a trial. After few days Abdul Rehman captured by a disease, unfortunately could not survive and died. This is the real story that changed to blackish the name of Umer (rt) (Al Maozo’aat by Ibn-a-joozi)

Sayuti has the same thinking too.

Brother Kadafi I hope now you have understood that Abu Shumha was a married person. I can criticize the most of the points of this Rivaayat in many ways but it’s a waste of time only. The above description is enough to prove my point; I declared in my last post, that even then this Rivaayat was created the final punishment for Zina was 100 lashes. Otherwise, certainly, the creator of this Rivaayat suggested stoning for Abu shumha (being a married person).

This would mean that if a person is found stealing a needle, his hand would be cut off.

The Sunnah places restriction on the application of this punishment. The stolen property must equal a nisab (one quarter of a Dinar in gold). Furthermore, the wealth/property must be stolen from a place where such wealth/property is ussualy kept. In addition, the robber and opportunist thief are not classified as thiefs.

Nice shot, but I am surprised you did not put any Hadith in favour of such “unique” statements, or sayings of Ibn-a-Qayyam are also “Sunnah”? You did not prescribe if someone stole a little less than “Nisab” then what is one’s punishment. Could you please tell me when this Nisab was stated? And how many times someone could steal less than Nisab?

If I goes to somewhere in my car and park it in the parkingl, where from car is stolen by someone, you mean it is not the stealing, because it’s my negligence, I should put the car in my pocket, am I right? And the person who stole my car could not be called thief because he is opportunist and he pick this car from parking. So we could not cut his hand. But if he steals my car from my house then he is thief. Now we could cut his hand. Excellent laws

I know only one thing brother if an Islamic govt. (Khilaafat ullah) is established in full form then may someone steal a needle or a ship one would be called thief and have the same punishment describe in Quran. And if the Khilafa is not established then there is no concept of punishments described by Quran. Thief is thief, may he opportunist or according to your definition. And as the matter of robbers it is more than theft; it is “Fasaad” (anarchy) and Quran has describe the punishment for it.

You have not used any authoritive references but rather relied on how you perceive the ayaats. Surely, that's a grave sin.

You are right brother but sorry I could not provide the references stronger than that of Quran. May the sayings of your Salaafs are most authentic for you but have nothing place in front of me in compare with the sayings of Almighty.


Allah Hafiz

format_quote Originally Posted by khalid zaheer

Brother first of all I want to clear you that I don’t like such debates, because I am not a dictator that I compel you to accept what I have presented here. Same as Allah (Rab ul Izzat) said to his Messenger (saw), “your work is to convey the message; you are not liable to compel them to accept it”. You & I have presented our views, you should think over what I presented here and I will examine your views, others themselves can decide what the best is. May Allah (Rub ul Izzat) bless all of us and make us able to spend our lives according to what He decided for us. Now come to your post. I hope this discussion will close now, because I don’t think there is a benefit of repeating the things again and again.

I cannot find any trace of ‘elitist attacks’ displayed in this discussion. To say that one is forcing his view would imply that he is receiving no opposition which is incorrect. Furthermore, people who force their views on others disregard the views of others and repeat the same predicable posts in spite of the fact that it has nothing to do with the replies of the opponent. I have not observed such behaviour in this topic or else I would have closed the thread.

As for you repeating your points, then address the replies adequately. Remember that failing to respond to my points results into you re-iterating your primary points.

Quran is an absolute knowledge, so there is no need to examine it. Even then Quran said (for “Ahl-a-Aimaan”)

And those who, when they are reminded by the “Aayaat” of their Lord, do not fall down at them deaf and blind.(73/25)

And it’s my “Aaimaan” that Sunnah is, certainly, to convert the verbal orders in practical. So I can easily get the knowledge about Sunnah through Quran, and it would be authentic. So I did not mean to examine Quranic verses, because these verses are standard to examine every matter, but the other sources through misc. ways as well as through Quran.

This is interesting, since you have introduced a whole new definition of the Sunnah. According to your statement, the sunnah is simply the commandments of the Glorious Qur’aan with any elucidation.

Allaah (Exalted is He) said in the Glorious Qur’aan, perform As-Salaat without explaining how to perform or observe. How would you convert from that single ayah into practise?

Even though your definition of sunnah concides with the quran-alone sect, let me state what Sunnah is according the various branches.

According to the ulema of ahadeeth, sunnah means all that is narrated from the Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), his sayings, his acts, whatever he has tacitly approved, and all the narrations which describe his physical attributes and character.

According to the ulema of Jurisprudence( Fiqh), the sunnah refers to the category of mandub or nafilah. It is used synonymously with mandub (recommended acts)

According to the ulema of usool al-fiqh, it refers to another source of the Shariah in addition with the Glortious Qur’aan.

And what do you mean by layman? I think every person is layman until he become able to call a knowledge full person. Bhukhari or Muslim was not layman? They did efforts and got up from the list of laymen, then called knowledge full person. Or you think now here is no one able to get up from the list of laymen? They were laymen too; there were not any inspiration for them. They got knowledge same as we get, they examined it and presented what they could understand. It does not mean whatever they presented is 100% perfect and we should go on the way with blind eyes.

I did not grasp what you just stated. What do you mean with ‘until he became able to call a knowledge full person’?

If you mean that every individual is a layman unless he acquires knowledge and expertise in his chosen field. That is exactly the whole concept of being a layperson.

It seems that argument is solely based on the claim that one has to start somewhere in order to gain knowledge. This is extraneous to what I have stated and that is whether one could interpret and deduce rulings from the Glorious Qur’aan without knowledge (i.e. a layperson).

As for blind-following the Imaams of Hadeeth, how can one blind-follow them if they have left the isnad, the criteria of how they evaluated the narrations for the benefit of later generations so that they can verify it.

Let’s see what the scholars have said regarding Imaam Bukharee (May Allaah have mercy on him)

Nu’aym ibn Hammaad said,

“Muhammad ibn Ismaa’eel is the Faqeeh of the Ummah.”

Ishaaq ibn Raahawaih said,

“Write narrations from this young man (meaning al-Bukhaaree), because if he had lived in the time of al-Hasan the people would have had need of him due to his knowledge of hadeeth and its understanding.”

Aboo Bakr ibn Abee Shaybah and Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullaah ibn
Numayr both said,

“We have not seen anyone like Muhammad ibn Ismaa’eel.”

Ahmad ibn Hanbal said,

“Khuraasaan has not brought out the like of Muhammad ibn Ismaa’eel.”

Aboo ‘Ammaar al-Husayn ibn Huraith praised al-Bukhaaree and
said,

“I am not aware that I have seen anyone the like of him, it is as if he had been created solely for the hadeeth.”

Muhammad ibn Bashshaar said,

“The great memorizers of the world are four: Aboo Zur’ahi in Rayy, ad-Daarirnee in Samarqand, Muhammad ibn Ismaa’eel in Bukhaaraa and Muslim in Neesaaboor.”

Ibn Khuzaymah said,

“I have not seen under the sky anyone having more knowledge of and better memorization of the hadeeth of Allaah’s Messenger (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) than Muhammad ibn Isrnaa’eel.”

The game of words, where this game has brought us every one easily examine by glimpses. And what blame upon whom “whoever Allah doesn’t intend to show goodness to”, what they should do when the “Fiqh” of religion is not given to them by Almighty? This is the justice of Allah that He does not show them the right path but ready to punish for what they do? What your “salaafs” interpretation says about?

Akhee, I am having trouble understanding your post. What are you trying to say? Should I take a stab in the dark and guess what you’re trying to say?

Let me first explain what the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) meant with that statement. Understanding the religion is the sign of the believer and having eemaan. It’s also one of the causes for the increase of eemaan. Having knowledge of the faith and knowing what increases and decreases eemaan is obligatory upon every Muslim. The saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is also confirmed in the Glorious Qur’aan:

Allaah (Exalted is He) said in Sooraat Al-Baqarah:

He grants wisdom to whom He pleases; and he to whom wisdom is granted indeed receives a benefit overflowing. But none will grasp the Message except men of understanding.

The Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) also said:

To seek knowledge is obligatory upon every Muslim

Those who are lacking common knowledge of the Deen are hypocrites and this is because Allaah (Exalted is He) said:

"But the hypocrites do not understand."

When you bring such kinds of statements in front of me it make my thinking firm about you that you are not a scholar but a typical “Moolvi”. But brother its not the good way to see your Deen.

Haha, akhee, no one is here claiming to be a scholar. I always assumed that a Maulvi is an urdu word for scholar. Leave the petty words akhee and concentrate on the argument.

How you imagine everyone except you and your “Salaafs” is layman, and not able to understand the book? How you know there is no one except you and your Salaafs that grasped the objectives and goals of Shariah? I think you don’t know how many time the verse “this Quran is so easy for those that want to understand it” is repeated in Quran. There is only one condition, presented by Quran, to understand it

“this book (Quran) is beyond any doubt, but it is guidance for those only that close their eyes from everywhere except what is revealed by Almighty in the book”. (2/2)

Firstly, if what you have stated implies and attributes ignorance to the Salaf, then I urge you to edit it out.

We know that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was the best interpreter of the Glorious Qur’aan. Similiary the Sahabas were the best mufassireen after the Prophet since they inherited his knowledge and conveyed it to the Ummah. This is why the Prophet praised his generation (sahabas), those who followed the sahabas (tabi'ien) and those who followed the students of the sahabas (tab tabi'een). Since Islaam was completed in the time of the Prophet, the correct understanding remained untill the end of the third generation. Hence why the scholars, past and present, had no disagreement that the first generations should be followed and stop where they stopped.

Imaam Al-Awzaee (may Allaah have mercy on him) said,

Hold yourself with patience upon Sunnah, stop where they stopped(Salaf), say what they said, and take the way of your pious salaf. Verily, it is sufficient for you what was sufficient for them.

It we understood this ayah in the same way that you understood, there would be no sects and hizbs and Allaah (Exalted is He) would be pleased with us.

The only ayah where Allaah (Exalted is He) said that the Qur’aan is easy is in the ayah where Allaah (Exalted is He) said:

And surely We have made the Qur’aan easy for Dhikr (getting a lesson) so is there anyone to get a lesson?

Obviosuly this ayah refers getting lesson from the Glorious Qur’aan and its being easy for this purpose only. There is no extension of this ayah to to indicate that everybody irrespective of the volume of their learning can derive rules and interpretation of the legal laws. Then Allaah (exalted is He) wouldn’t have sent the prophet as a teacher and explainer of the Glorious Qur’aan.

Allaah (Exalted is He) said:

And these similitudes We mention before the people. And nobody understands them except the learned

Ibn Katheer comments in his tafseer regarding the ayah:

(And these are the examples We give for mankind; but none will understand them except those who have knowledge.) meaning, no one understands them or ponders them except those who are possessed of deep knowledge. Ibn Abi Hatim recorded that `Amr bin Murrah said, "I never came across an Ayah of the Book of Allah that I did not know, but it grieved me, because I heard that Allaah says:

(And these are the examples We give for mankind; but none will understand them except those who have knowledge. )''

I think the concept of “Naskh” has much importance in your life, because at many places I have read these words from you but I did not touch it because it’s a very useless matter that was created by “Khitaabi” and his co-religionist to change the orders of Quranic verses. But I think you could enlighten the matter, I am putting some question plz reply for me

The concept of Naskh is confirmed in the Glorious Qur’aan and to simply brush it as an illegal concept forged by a Muslim reveals that you do not much of the subject.

Nevertheless, I will answer your queries.

how many verses are agreed “Naskh”?

Al-Suyuti in his book al-Itqaan said that:

'twenty-one verses in the Qur'an were abrogated; some were agreed upon, while others are not. These abrogated verses are in the following Surahs: Al-Baqarah, Al-'Imran, An-Nisa', Al-Ma'idah, Al-Anfal, At-Taubah, An-Nur, Al-Ahzab, Al-Mujadilah, Al-Mumtahinah and Al-Muzzammil.

2_Please present at least five verses that are agreed cancelled?

Naskh may be either sarih (explit) or dimni (implicit). I will list some explicit and implicit ones:

First cancelled ayah is the change of Qiblah:

“Verily, We have seen the turning of your (Muhammad’s) face towards the heaven. Surely, We shall turn you to a Qiblah (prayer direction) that shall please you, so turn your face in the direction of Al-Masjid Al-Haraam (at Makkah)”[al-Baqarah 2:144]

Second cancelled ayah is the ayah in Sooraat al-Anfal:

'If there be of you twenty steadfast persons, they shall overcome two hundred, and if there be one hundred of you, they shall overcome one thousand

Allaah subsequently revealed:

Now Allah has lightened your burden [...] if there be of you one hundred steadfast persons, they shall overcome two hundred, and if there be of you one thousand, they shall overcome two thousand.'

Third cancelled ayah which is an implicit abrogation is the waiting period of widows:

Those of you who are about to die and leave widows should bequeath for their widows a year's maintenance and residence; but if they leave the residence, you are not responsible for what they do of themselves (al-Baqarah, 2:240).

To

Those of you who die and leave widows, the latter must observe a waiting period of four months and ten days; when they have fulfilled their term, you are not responsible for what they do of themselves (al-Baqarah, 2:234)

These should serve as an example since I do not have the time to list all the abrogated ayaat.

3_We need to act upon the verses that have been cancelled or not?

Ayaat that are in the Qur’aan and have been cancelled should not be acted upon but should be recited in salaat. That is naskh al-hukm such as the abrogated ayaat that I have cited above.

If “khawarji” said the same what the Quran is saying then they are “deviate”, we need not to pay attention because they are Khawarji? You mean whatever the Khawarji said is wrong may that is according to Quran, but if someone is insisting over the things that are against Quran even then one is like a Messenger because he is not khawarji but one of your salaafs, bohat khooob. They themselves announced that we are khawarij or you make them Khawarji? They were khawarij because they said “we don’t accept the things out of Quran”, and we are “Moomin” because we are ready to accept every thing out of Quran might it be against the book. They present a thing that is according to Quran how you decline it? You reject it because a label (khawarij) has been pasted upon by some persons, then this label has been pasted upon Muhammad (saw) too. He (saw) was not khawarji for whole Arab when He (saw) presented a new Deen? Think if you able to think

Not only are you not making sense but you applied the label khawarij to connote to presenting a new Deen.

Khawaraaji were the first sect who abandoned the Sunnah and rejected most of the ahadeeth and declared those who commit major sins as kaafirs. Seriously, I do not understand you reasoning to apply such label to the Prophet whilst not knowing who they were.

I don’t need to know what your “Mazzhabs” say about; I need to know what my DEEN has said. May the Imams of these Mazzhabs have the place like Allah’s Messengers in front of you and you see their books like divine books but in my opinion if they are presenting something which is against Quran then, according to Quran, they are certainly “Zaalim”. Who permit them to make Ijma over a thing one or two "lives" depend upon, furthermore against the divine book? They are not agreeing upon most of the matters but over the thing that is against Quran they are agreed, surprising.

Surprisingly, I was right. I really held the assumption that you at least knew the foundations of the Shariah sciences. Apparantly, I was mistaken and this dialogue proved to be unfruitful if the opposite hasn’t got the slightest clue of the Islaamic foundations and ridicules the Imaams.

The only source that you seem to be accepting is the Qur’aan only and thus neglecting the Sunnah. This places you in the same category as the Quran-alone sect.

I have put the questions above but here asking again “if this verse is forgotten by Almighty then why are you insisting to remember it? You should also forget it”. You did not put the next words of this Aayat; the verse is

Whatever verse We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it, or the like of it; dost thou not know that God is powerful over everything? (106/2)

If the ayah of stoning has been abrogated verbally, then how can one remember it. I never cited the exact of stoning, rather I cited the injunction. It seems that you’re confused on this issue.

If the verse of stoning is “caused to be forgotten” then which one is replaced? And if verse of stoning is replacement then which one is forgotten? Could you please explain for me?

Since naskh has various principles, the form of abrogation regarding stoning is refered to as naskh al-tilawah. There are naskh without any replacement and the basis for them is in the ahadeeth. But this will prove to be troublesome for you since you do not recognize the sunnah and thus only rely on the Glorious Qur’aan. Since all these reports were narrated from the Sahabas, do you accept or reject the ijma of the Sahabas?

The word “interpretation” is your favorite word so using for you “is this your interpretation that the revealed laws means Quran and Sunnah”, and both are a different things.

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said:

“I have been given the Qur’an and something similar to it besides it. Yet a time will come when a man leaning on his couch will say ‘follow the Qur’an only; what you find in it permissible, take as permissible, and what you find as forbidden, take as forbidden’. But verily what the Messenger of Allaah has forbidden is like what Allaah has forbidden”

This is reported by Ahmad and Abu Dawood and classified as saheeh.

It seems that you have not replied on the ayat which speak of the Sunnah. The al-dhikr that includes both the Glorious Qur’aan.

How you know brother the word inspiration means “un-recited revelation”? It means you have the authority to interpretation of Quran as you like but other could not be. Every person that has a little touch with Quran knows this verse is the reply of what the “Kuffar” said “why you yourself not announce the orders in the matter of Deen” and “these are the stories Muhammad (saw) has listened from someone and repeating in front of us day and night”. But you changed its meanings to un-recited revelation.

Why do you insist on claiming that I interpret this ayaat based on my thinking. I am simply relaying the understanding of the sahabas in regard to that ayah.

Ibn katheer (may Allaah have mercy on him) said regarding:

(It is only a revelation revealed.), means, he only conveys to the people what he was commanded to convey, in its entirety without additions or deletions. Imam Ahmad recorded that Abu Umamah said that he heard the Messenger of Allaah say,

(Verily, numbers similar to the two tribes, or one of them, Rabi`ah and Mudar, will enter Paradise on account of the intercession of one man, who is not a Prophet.)

A man asked, "O Allaah's Messenger! Is not Rabi`ah a subtribe of Mudar.'' The Prophet said,

(I said what I said.)

Imam Ahmad recorded that `Abdullah bin `Amr said,

"I used to record everything I heard from the Messenger of Allaah so it would be preserved. The Quraysh discouraged me from this, saying, `You record everything you hear from the Messenger of Allaah , even though he is human and sometimes speaks when he is angry' I stopped recording the Hadiths for a while, but later mentioned what they said to the Messenger of Allaah , who said,

(Write! By He in Whose Hand is my soul, every word that comes out of me is the Truth.)''
Abu Dawud also collected this Hadith.

Does your opinion on the ayah overrule the understanding of the Sahabas?

Your words “may” and “left to the Sunnah” are interesting. If Sunnah was able to define laws and Muhammad (saw) had the authority to announce the things lawful or unlawful then what is the need of Quran? The above two verses were enough. Allah reveals these verses and Muhammad (saw) announced these things are good and lawful and those are not.

The question should be, why did Allaah (Exalted is He) repeatedly say in the Glorious Qur’aan that He sent the Prophet as legislator.

Allaah (Exalted is He) said:

Fight those who do not believe in Allaah and the Hereafter and do not hold unlawful what Allaah and His Messenger have made unlawful

Here, the Prophet, by the will of Allaah, exercises the authority to make something unlawful.

Allaah (Exalted is He) also says

No believer, neither man nor woman, has a right, when Allaah and His Messenger decide a matter, to have a choice in their matter in issue. And whoever disobeys Allaah and His Messenger has gone astray into manifest error.

He also says:

Whatever the Messenger gives you, take it; and whatever he forbids you, refrain from it.

Or what about:

But no, by your Lord, they shall not be (deemed to be) believers unless they accept you as judge in their disputes, then find in their hearts no adverse feeling against what you decided, but surrender to it in complete submission.

Brother Kadafi I hope now you have understood that Abu Shumha was a married person. I can criticize the most of the points of this Rivaayat in many ways but it’s a waste of time only. The above description is enough to prove my point; I declared in my last post, that even then this Rivaayat was created the final punishment for Zina was 100 lashes. Otherwise, certainly, the creator of this Rivaayat suggested stoning for Abu shumha (being a married person).

There are two conflicting points regarding Abu Shahma. The first statement you cited stated that he impregnated a female by force whilst in the state of being drunk. The second reported stated by Ibn hajar is that one day he, he drank wine and became unconscious. He confessed his guilt and wanted to be punished. Amr bin Al Aas said that they were feeling repentant and that was enough, and no further punishment was called for. However, Abu Shahma insisted that he should be punished according to Law. So he was punished (80 lashes). Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him) found out that Amr bin Al Aas flogged Abu Shahma in his house instead of public so he ordered that Abu Shahma should be send to Madinah and be flogged in public. Compare that to your statement that he Umar showed undue favour to his son by awarding only lashes.

The penalty for drinking whine is 80 lashes. This is reported in the Muwatta of Malik:

Yahya related to me from Malik from Thawr ibn Zayd ad-Dili that Umar ibn al-Khattab asked advice about a man drinking wine. Ali ibn Abi Talib said to him, "We think that you flog him for it with eighty lashes. Because when he drinks, he becomes intoxicated, and when he becomes intoxicated, he talks confusedly, and when he talks confusedly, he lies." (80 lashes is the same amount as for slandering) Umar gave eighty lashes for drinking wine.

Despite the fact that these are conflicting reports, the first report (the one you cited) does not contradict the ruling on stoning. Umar flogged him first but he died in the processes of being flogged, since the punishment is lashing for unmarried Muslims and lashing AND stoning for married Muslims.

Nice shot, but I am surprised you did not put any Hadith in favour of such “unique” statements, or sayings of Ibn-a-Qayyam are also “Sunnah”?

At one moment, you do not accept the hadeeth but the other moment you demand the hadeeth for a ruling.

The reason why they are not classified as thieves is ‘cause they do not fit the category. Sariqa (theft) accordin’ to the Shariah Law means taking away the property of another in a secret manner, at time when such property is in custody. Compare that to a robber takes properties by force or the opportunist who takes away the property when the owner is being neglectful. It is fully explained in the statement by Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allaah have mercy on him).

You did not prescribe if someone stole a little less than “Nisab” then what is one’s punishment. Could you please tell me when this Nisab was stated? And how many times someone could steal less than Nisab?

If one still less than a Nisab, then his action would be deemed as haraam but the hadd would not be applied. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said and is reported by Ahmad.

“There is no cutting (of hands) for stealing that is less than ten Dirhams.” (Musnad Ahmad)

A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) narrates that: “The hand of a thief was not cut off during the lifetime of the Messenger of Allaah (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) except for stealing something equal to a shield in value.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, 6792, & Sahih Muslim, 1685)

If I goes to somewhere in my car and park it in the parkingl, where from car is stolen by someone, you mean it is not the stealing, because it’s my negligence, I should put the car in my pocket, am I right? And the person who stole my car could not be called thief because he is opportunist and he pick this car from parking. So we could not cut his hand. But if he steals my car from my house then he is thief. Now we could cut his hand. Excellent laws

You did not grasp the concept and hastily resorted in unnecessary analogies. If you have secured your car with utmost protection, and the thief manages to steal it, then he will be classified as a thief.

The elements that constitute sariqa are:

1. The thief must be an adult of sound understanding
2. The property must be in careful protection on the man.
3 The property must be taken out of the custody of another person (owner) in a secret manner.
4. The thief must have obtained full possession of the stolen property.
5. The property must be movable.
6. The property must be of some value, which must not be less than the prescribed “Nisaab/Nisab” (limit).
7. Dishonest intention to take property.

I know only one thing brother if an Islamic govt. (Khilaafat ullah) is established in full form then may someone steal a needle or a ship one would be called thief and have the same punishment describe in Quran

So according to you, one who steals a needle must still be punished. What about children, or the insane?

It is apparent that you cannot answer such questions since your only source is restricted to the Glorious Qur’aan despite the fact that Allaah (Exalted is He) repeatedly mentioned to obey Him and His Messenger.

It is odd that one can profess such view to be correct and that the Ummah of the last 1400 years including the Sahabas and the Prophet erred in applying the Law of stoning.

La hawla wa la quwwata illa billaah

brother Kadafi

Sorry brother I could not reply in time because of my sickness + some personal activities, sorry again. Now I am here again, discuss will be started in a day or two inshallah.