Hadeth authenticity question

[kmsgli]

Salam, let me start by saying I like reading and checking things for myself rather then taking what an Imam/other person says and running with it I like to check up on things, maybe a bad thing but I like to double check everything I hear no matter who it comes from.


That being said I would like to ask a question as I am confused by some of the information I have received over the years. My question is related to the Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim hadith books. I have been told by more than one person who knows much more than me that both books are completely authentic and in some instances I have heard if you find the same hadith in both books it is definitely true. Hearing this I have naturally begun to read through some of the books (in English). I have come across a hadith that is present in both books but very different in their transmission of the same concept. In Sahih Bukhari the hadith that seems to me to convey the same message in a much longer and different way is Volume 8 book 8 hadith numbers 817. In Sahih Muslim the hadith is Book 17 hadith number 4194. I will quote the hadith in Sahih Muslim as it is much shorter than the hadith in Sahih Bukhari;
Bk 17, Number 4194:
“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.”

This quote was taken from an online English translation of Sahih Bukhari in PDF format. I am not too concerned with the actual outcome of if stoning the adulterer is halal or haram. While it is an important question, the more important question I have is, is this a valid hadith? From my understanding of this hadith the verse of stoning was part of revelation but did not make it into The Qur’an which would make The Qur’an incomplete and we know that is not true because we know The Qur’an to be protected by Allah and to be perfect. It may be that I have understood what is being conveyed here incorrectly. I’m asking about this hadith because it is in both Sahih Bukhari and Muslim. So secondary question is, based on these Hadith can we as Muslims say both books have all authentic hadith in them? If the answer is yes then how can we explain this hadith which seems to say something from the revelation of The Qur’an is not actually in The Qur’an.

I apologize for my long winded question and would like to point out I am new the the forums and I joined to ask this question because I have actually asked this question to an Imam would like to know if the answer I got is the only answer on the subject because it is not sufficient to me.

Thank you for reading, Sallam.

 

[Good brother]

We learn two things from this narration:
(1) the ayah of rajm was revealed and the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessing be upon him) carried the punishment
(2) and 'Umar (May Allah be pleased with him) is afraid that the time will come when people will reject the ruling due to absence of the ayah in the Qur'an.

It was never meant to be a part of the Quranic text:

There are more proofs that it was not at all meant to be the part of the Quranic script.

1-It is reported in a narration from Kathir bin Salt that: Zaid (b. Thabit) said: 'I heard the Messenger of Allah say, 'When a married man or woman commit adultery stone them both (to death)', (hearing this) Amr said,
'When this was revealed I came to Prophet and asked if I could write it, he (the Prophet) disliked it.' (Mustadrik Al-Hakim, Hadith 8184. Hakim called it Sahih. al-Dhahbi agreed with him)

2- About this 'verse' Kathir bin Salt says that he, Zaid bin Thabit and Marwan bin Hakam were discussing as to why it is not written in the Quranic manuscript and Umar bin Khattab was present with them and listening to their discussion he said he knew it better then them and told them that he came to Messenger of Allah and said:

"'O Messenger of Allah, let the verse about stoning be written for me.' He (the Prophet) said, 'I can't do this.'" (Sunan Al-Kubra Baihiqi 8/211 & Sunan Al-Kubra Nasai Hadith 7148. Albani (in Sahiha 6/412) said Baihiqi pointed to its authenticity)
Who could stop the Prophet (pbuh) from writing this verse in the Quran if it was supposed to be? Indeed it was not meant to be written in the Quran and that's why Holy Prophet disliked its idea of its being written down.

Why is it called a 'verse'?

Infact it was a verse from an earlier book as proved from Tabari's narration above and since its instruction was upheld through revelation so it is referred to as a 'verse' and the words 'sent down' or 'revealed' are used for it.

Is stoning (rajm) mentioned in the Quran today?

And as to Caliph Umar's statement 'the people may say: We do not find the punishment of stoning in the Book of Allah.', it only refers to categorical mentioning otherwise Quran does point to the punishment of stoning. Infact Quran 5:43-44 were revealed about punishment of stoning and the words 'Command of Allah' (v.43) and 'What Allah hath revealed' (v.44) refer to punishment of stoning. This becomes absolutely clear considering the traditions that Ibn Kathir, Tabari and Qurtubi etc. have brought in commentary to these verses.

And when Caliph Umar said, 'Stoning is a duty laid down in Allah's Book'he perhaps only referred to verses 43-44 of Surah 5 as mentioned above. Also we need to know that the Companions of the Prophet (pbuh) used to consider something proved from Hadith as important and as authentic as being in the Quran. The following tradition testifies to it.

'Abdullah (bin Masud) said. "Allah curses those ladies who practice tattooing and those who get themselves tattooed, and those ladies who remove the hair from their faces and those who make artificial spaces between their teeth in order to look more beautiful whereby they change Allah's creation." His saying reached a lady from Bani Asd called Um Yaqub who came (to Abdullah) and said, "I have come to know that you have cursed such-and-such (ladies)?" He replied, "Why should I not curse these whom Allah's Apostle has cursed and who are (cursed) in Allah's Book!" Um Yaqub said, "I have read the whole Quran, but I did not find in it what you say." He said, "Verily, if you have read it (i.e. the Quran), you have found it. Didn't you read: 'And whatsoever the Apostle gives you take it and whatsoever he forbids you, you abstain (from it).' (59.7). She replied, "Yes, I did," He said, "Verily, Allah's Apostle forbade such things. (Bukhari, Hadith 4507)

And as we know that punishment of stoning is clearly established in Hadith so Caliph Umar's statement can well be taken on that account.

Did Caliph Umar actually think some verse was missing?

Most certainly Caliph Umar knew well and understood that the particular words 'When a married man or woman commit adultery, stone them (to death)'are not meant to be the part of the actual text of the Holy Quran. This is clear from another tradition in which he said:

"Had it not been that people would say Umar has made an addition to the Book of Allah, I would have written it on the margin of the Quran."(Musnad Ahmad Hadith 151. Ahmad Shakir classified it as Sahih)
And according to the wording in Sunan Nasai Al-Kubra Hadith 7151 , he said 'I would have written and appended it to the Quran.'

Now idea of writing at the margin of the Quran or adding as an appendix clearly shows that he only meant to add it as side note or commentary to the Quran to tell the future generations explicitly about the punishment of stoning whom he feared rejecting this commandment and going astray.

The above detail makes it absolutely clear that never was there any verse about stoning a part of the Quranic text.

Scholars' intake:

The idea that there was never any verse on stoning revealed to be a part of the Qur'an and then abrogated is not my brainchild. Infact the above is based on Shaykh Taqi Usmani's explanation (see Takmala Fath al-Mulhim vol.2 p.354-61).

Sayyid Maududi held the same view

al-Alusi quotes Ibn Hammam (d. 861 A.H.) to have argued for the same (See Ruh al-M'ani 9/278)

al-Baqilani (403 A.H.) also refused to accept the idea of its once being a part of the Qur'an and then getting abrogated in his al-Intisar. Shaykh Shu'aib Arnaut quoted it in his notes to Hadith 21636 of Musnad Ahmad and seemingly agreed to it.

Moreover, this explanation puts to death all queries and questions on the issue.

The institution of Stoning (Rajm):

Regardless of the issue at hand the ruling of stoning is indeed valid. It is proved through Mutawatar Ahadith reported by around 52 companions (see Takmala Fath al-Mulhim vol.2 p.362 for all the references). The Mutawatar Ahadith decide the scope of the Qur'anic verse in Surah Nur about lashing and limit it to unmarried people.
INDEED ALLAH KNOWS THE BEST!

Source: letmeturnthetables site.

 

[kmsgli]

We learn two things from this narration:
(1) the ayah of rajm was revealed and the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessing be upon him) carried the punishment
(2) and 'Umar (May Allah be pleased with him) is afraid that the time will come when people will reject the ruling due to absence of the ayah in the Qur'an.

It was never meant to be a part of the Quranic text:

There are more proofs that it was not at all meant to be the part of the Quranic script.

1-It is reported in a narration from Kathir bin Salt that: Zaid (b. Thabit) said: 'I heard the Messenger of Allah say, 'When a married man or woman commit adultery stone them both (to death)', (hearing this) Amr said,
'When this was revealed I came to Prophet and asked if I could write it, he (the Prophet) disliked it.' (Mustadrik Al-Hakim, Hadith 8184. Hakim called it Sahih. al-Dhahbi agreed with him)

2- About this 'verse' Kathir bin Salt says that he, Zaid bin Thabit and Marwan bin Hakam were discussing as to why it is not written in the Quranic manuscript and Umar bin Khattab was present with them and listening to their discussion he said he knew it better then them and told them that he came to Messenger of Allah and said:

"'O Messenger of Allah, let the verse about stoning be written for me.' He (the Prophet) said, 'I can't do this.'" (Sunan Al-Kubra Baihiqi 8/211 & Sunan Al-Kubra Nasai Hadith 7148. Albani (in Sahiha 6/412) said Baihiqi pointed to its authenticity)
Who could stop the Prophet (pbuh) from writing this verse in the Quran if it was supposed to be? Indeed it was not meant to be written in the Quran and that's why Holy Prophet disliked its idea of its being written down.

Why is it called a 'verse'?

Infact it was a verse from an earlier book as proved from Tabari's narration above and since its instruction was upheld through revelation so it is referred to as a 'verse' and the words 'sent down' or 'revealed' are used for it.

Is stoning (rajm) mentioned in the Quran today?

And as to Caliph Umar's statement 'the people may say: We do not find the punishment of stoning in the Book of Allah.', it only refers to categorical mentioning otherwise Quran does point to the punishment of stoning. Infact Quran 5:43-44 were revealed about punishment of stoning and the words 'Command of Allah' (v.43) and 'What Allah hath revealed' (v.44) refer to punishment of stoning. This becomes absolutely clear considering the traditions that Ibn Kathir, Tabari and Qurtubi etc. have brought in commentary to these verses.

And when Caliph Umar said, 'Stoning is a duty laid down in Allah's Book'he perhaps only referred to verses 43-44 of Surah 5 as mentioned above. Also we need to know that the Companions of the Prophet (pbuh) used to consider something proved from Hadith as important and as authentic as being in the Quran. The following tradition testifies to it.

'Abdullah (bin Masud) said. "Allah curses those ladies who practice tattooing and those who get themselves tattooed, and those ladies who remove the hair from their faces and those who make artificial spaces between their teeth in order to look more beautiful whereby they change Allah's creation." His saying reached a lady from Bani Asd called Um Yaqub who came (to Abdullah) and said, "I have come to know that you have cursed such-and-such (ladies)?" He replied, "Why should I not curse these whom Allah's Apostle has cursed and who are (cursed) in Allah's Book!" Um Yaqub said, "I have read the whole Quran, but I did not find in it what you say." He said, "Verily, if you have read it (i.e. the Quran), you have found it. Didn't you read: 'And whatsoever the Apostle gives you take it and whatsoever he forbids you, you abstain (from it).' (59.7). She replied, "Yes, I did," He said, "Verily, Allah's Apostle forbade such things. (Bukhari, Hadith 4507)

And as we know that punishment of stoning is clearly established in Hadith so Caliph Umar's statement can well be taken on that account.

Did Caliph Umar actually think some verse was missing?

Most certainly Caliph Umar knew well and understood that the particular words 'When a married man or woman commit adultery, stone them (to death)'are not meant to be the part of the actual text of the Holy Quran. This is clear from another tradition in which he said:

"Had it not been that people would say Umar has made an addition to the Book of Allah, I would have written it on the margin of the Quran."(Musnad Ahmad Hadith 151. Ahmad Shakir classified it as Sahih)
And according to the wording in Sunan Nasai Al-Kubra Hadith 7151 , he said 'I would have written and appended it to the Quran.'

Now idea of writing at the margin of the Quran or adding as an appendix clearly shows that he only meant to add it as side note or commentary to the Quran to tell the future generations explicitly about the punishment of stoning whom he feared rejecting this commandment and going astray.

The above detail makes it absolutely clear that never was there any verse about stoning a part of the Quranic text.

Scholars' intake:

The idea that there was never any verse on stoning revealed to be a part of the Qur'an and then abrogated is not my brainchild. Infact the above is based on Shaykh Taqi Usmani's explanation (see Takmala Fath al-Mulhim vol.2 p.354-61).

Sayyid Maududi held the same view

al-Alusi quotes Ibn Hammam (d. 861 A.H.) to have argued for the same (See Ruh al-M'ani 9/278)

al-Baqilani (403 A.H.) also refused to accept the idea of its once being a part of the Qur'an and then getting abrogated in his al-Intisar. Shaykh Shu'aib Arnaut quoted it in his notes to Hadith 21636 of Musnad Ahmad and seemingly agreed to it.

Moreover, this explanation puts to death all queries and questions on the issue.

The institution of Stoning (Rajm):

Regardless of the issue at hand the ruling of stoning is indeed valid. It is proved through Mutawatar Ahadith reported by around 52 companions (see Takmala Fath al-Mulhim vol.2 p.362 for all the references). The Mutawatar Ahadith decide the scope of the Qur'anic verse in Surah Nur about lashing and limit it to unmarried people.
INDEED ALLAH KNOWS THE BEST!

Source: letmeturnthetables site.

Sallam,

I am slightly confused. Ayah 43-44 in surah 5 do not make any mention of stoning? Maybe I am missing something?

I to can not take abbrogation as a correct answer which from what I read of what you wrote you seem to agree (that is a whole topic in itself )?

Can you please clarify for me a few points;
Are you saying, stoning as a punishhment is in the qura'an?
It was part of revelation but left out?
or that stoning is only for married adulterer not unmarried?

I re read what you wrote a couple times and am having a hard time understanding which point you are making as they all dont exactly jive

Thanks for your response, sallam.